Personal Statement: The Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, at yesterday's Starred Question on the decontamination of surgical instruments, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, I stated in good faith that a copy of both A review of the decontamination of surgical instruments in the NHS in England and the snapshot survey entitled Decontamination Review: Report on a survey of current decontamination practices in healthcare premises in England had been placed in the Library of the House on 11th December. Immediately after Questions I checked with the Library and discovered that, while the review had indeed been placed in the Library, the snapshot survey had not been included, as I had fully intended. I have now ensured that several full copies of both documents are available in the Library and the Printed Paper Office. I have sent a copy of both documents to those noble Lords who spoke during yesterday's Question and apologise unreservedly to the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree, and to the House.

Steel Industry

Lord Brookman: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they have taken to alert the United States administration to the impact which their proposed trade action on steel products could have on the United Kingdom steel industry.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, this issue has been raised with the United States administration on numerous occasions by myself, my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and other government departments and by officials here and in the British Embassy in Washington. We have made it clear to the United States that measures such as those proposed by the United States International Trade Commission would be inappropriate and highly damaging. In our view, steel trade issues such as global over-capacity should be addressed through multilateral discussions.

Lord Brookman: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that very proper Answer. My noble friend and the whole House will be aware that the UK steel industry has once again gone through an extremely difficult period, with closures, tens of thousands of job losses and, of course, the tragic loss of lives and terrible injuries sustained at the Port Talbot steelworks. I am sure that my noble friend and the whole House would wish to send their sympathies to those in South Wales who have been affected by that terrible tragedy.
	My concern, on which I should like the Minister to assist, is that if America introduced protectionist policies, steel that would normally go to America would have to find a different home. Some of that would land on the UK's shores and be dumped at low prices. That would have a terrible effect on the steel industry. The problem that we face is that the European Union takes two to two and a half years to deal with such measures, while America takes two or three months. Will she use her good offices to assist steel employers in that matter?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course I join my noble friend in expressing sympathy to those affected by the tragedy in South Wales. My noble friend points out that there may be some difficulties because of what I can only describe as trade diversion from the United States to Europe in general and to the United Kingdom in particular. It is very difficult to quantify that diversion—or dumping, as my noble friend called it.
	The real difficulty is that we do not know what the President of the United States is going to say about the International Trade Commission's recommendations. He may decide to set them all on one side; he may decide to accept them in full, which would have a devastating effect; he may decide to implement them partially; or he may decide to implement some totally different measures. We have to judge how we should react as a country and through the EU at that stage. I assure my noble friend that neither I nor any of my colleagues with ministerial responsibility for the issue have lost any opportunity to make our feelings felt about it. I hope that my noble friend knows that the Prime Minister has already said that he may be willing to intervene at a later stage.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, following up on that point, does the noble Baroness agree that, in the light of the strong support given to the United States over the war against terror and the close relationship that has presumably developed between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States on Afghan and terror-related matters, this is an occasion on which the Prime Minister could put in his notional diplomatic bag in his discussions with the President of the United States the trade issues relating to steel products and the impact on the steel industry? Will she confirm that the Prime Minister will do that?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. I am bound to say that I have made almost exactly the same points when dealing with my United States counterparts. We are trying to change the way in which international relations work. It seems a retrograde step to be looking at what I can only describe as a good old fashioned trade battle. I hope that we shall be able to resolve the dispute without resorting to the WTO, although that is clearly a possibility if the United States Government decide to go ahead with some of the recommendations. I repeat that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has written to Sir Brian Moffat and indicated that he may be willing to intervene on the issue when he judges the moment to be right for such intervention to have the greatest effect with the United States.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the United States Government's current actions are not "inappropriate", as she described them, but protectionist, as were their actions when addressing the issue of bananas and of Kashmir cloth? Is she optimistic that the countermeasures being proposed by the European Union will resolve the issue?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I think that we have to be clear that the United States has not as yet taken any action. The United States International Trade Commission has made certain recommendations to the United States President, and it is now down to him to take the decision, which he must do by 6th March. A decision is therefore imminent. I can only reiterate that we shall do everything we can—including bilaterally, as my colleagues in this House and in another place have been doing—to dissuade the United States. The noble Lord has asked me whether I am optimistic. I am afraid that, in this issue, I am being realistic. I agree with him that, should the United States pursue the path that it seems all too sadly to have chosen, it will be highly damaging to steel not only in this country but among our European partners.

Lord Jones: My Lords, will my noble friend say what the Government have done to help the 4,000 steel workers who lost their jobs last year in Britain? Is it the Government's view that entry to the euro currency would assist the British steel industry in its very real difficulties?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, on the last question, as I am sure my noble friend is aware, such an assessment will be part of one of the tests that, as we all know, will be a matter for decision initially for the Treasury, then for Parliament, and then for the people of this country. My noble friend asked specifically about what the Government have done to try to help the steel industry. Since October 2001, we have had an enormous number of meetings on the subject. If I may, I shall write to him on that specific point. The Question itself is on exports. Although I agree that the point he has raised is important, if he would like specific answers, perhaps he will forgive me if I write to him and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

Lord Paul: My Lords, I declare an interest as someone in the steel industry. The United States has been preaching to the whole world on the issue of free trade, in the WTO and in other organisations, but now it is taking the first step backward. Why have we not protested at an international level about that?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have protested very vigorously to the United States. I myself have protested very vigorously to Ambassador Zoellick, to others in the United States trade administration and to our colleagues in the State Department. I believe that the real issue is one of over-capacity in the United States steel industry. As many noble Lords will know, we in this country have undergone a very painful and difficult time in reducing our steel capacity and making the industry more efficient. We do not believe that quite the same diligence has been forthcoming in the United State on the issue. It is most regrettable that the United States should now be even considering these types of protectionist measures. We believe, however, that the way of solving it is through the multilateral means offered by the OECD and a number of other countries which together represent 98 per cent of the world-wide steel capacity. That is where the United States should be concentrating its efforts.

Silverstone Grand Prix: A43 Roadworks

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, in asking this Question I declare an interest as president of the Motorsport Industry Association.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they expect the Silverstone village bypass on the A43 to be finished in time for the British Grand Prix weekend of 5th to 7th July 2002.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Government recognise the importance of the British Grand Prix at Silverstone and want to play an appropriate role to ensure a successful event in 2002. Although we do not anticipate that the bypass will be open to the general public before this year's Grand Prix, action is being taken to ensure that the great majority of it will be available for use from 5th to 7th July to enable Silverstone race traffic to be managed effectively.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Is he aware that if the whole road is not finished and there is a repeat of last year's traffic chaos, we risk not only losing our largest televised sporting event—which, over a week, puts £40 million into the local economy—but also seriously undermining the £5 billion British high-tech motorsport industry?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, yes, the Government are very aware of that, as shown last December when we lent our strong support to retaining the British Grand Prix in the face of its threatened withdrawal by some of our competitors and the FIA arising from last year's difficulties. In the light of that, my honourable friend in another place recently met the Highways Agency, seeking to advance works on the bypass. What can be made available in time for the Grand Prix is currently being discussed with the Highways Agency, which is discussing the issue with its contractor. We are optimistic that, subject to final discussions, we can increase the certainty of works being carried out in time to ensure an extremely successful Grand Prix.

Lord Elder: My Lords, is the state of preparedness of the link road from the bypass to the site well advanced? While my noble friend's comments are encouraging, it is a matter of concern that the link road may not be ready. The two projects go together. Although I appreciate that the matter is principally for the site operator, can my noble friend say whether there has been any progress?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, we emphasised that at the meeting that my honourable friend and I recently held with all the parties, including Octagon. We emphasised that there was little point in the Government making efforts to ensure that our part of the jigsaw was in place unless they contributed theirs. I am certain that they were well seized of that. Nevertheless, we shall be closely monitoring the situation in relation to all parties. Despite the challenges that all parties face, there are extremely good relationships between them.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Silverstone bypass constitutes just a small part of the improvement of the road between Northampton and Oxford and that much traffic will come to Silverstone from both the south and the north? Therefore, it is not just the Silverstone area which is involved here.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite correct. It is part of a £56 million major dualling of the A43 trunk road. The review meeting that we held did not identify any other substantial pinchpoints or problems in that respect. Furthermore, there are some fairly sophisticated management plans this year to increase the use of coaches to bring in people at alternative entrances to the site and to manage the car parks vastly better than was the case last year, all of which increases our confidence but not total certainty that all parts of the problem will be cracked this year.

Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister accept that failure once again to get infrastructure in place for a major sporting event does not exactly inspire confidence in our ability to do so for any future large-scale sporting occasions?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, in the circumstances, that is a slightly churlish remark given the effort that everyone is making to drive this event forward. I take the opportunity to nail a few other points as regards the commitment of the Government to promoting the success of the British motorsport industry. As has been signalled, we are a world leader in the design, manufacture and technology of motor sports. The DTI, with the industry, has sought to promote three centres of excellence down what I believe is called "motorsport valley" in the UK to try further to promote the transfer of the successful technology that exists in the motorsport industry to other sectors. In the light of that, the plans for Silverstone and the commitment of the Government to the event, there is no substance in the noble Lord's allegation.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the biggest problem at the previous Grand Prix held at Silverstone was that it rained and cars could not get on or off the course? It had nothing whatever to do with the road system.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I agree, but it does not give me great comfort to use that argument. Many of the measures I have described have been put in place to ensure that the event is not reliant on good weather. Having said that, it was not just appalling rain in October and November that caused delays. The contract was also stopped for two months due to foot and mouth disease, but in saying that I am not encouraging your Lordships to debate that issue again.

Lord Stewartby: My Lords, do the Government accept that the importance of this matter lies in the fact that if we were to lose the British Grand Prix we would have a tough time trying to get it back and that would inevitably have a major impact on the motorsport industry, as the Minister said? The industry is not only high-tech; more than half its product is exported.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I strongly agree. Without repeating what I said previously, I echo the noble Lord's comment. The matter is also, of course, of considerable importance to the south Midlands economy—some £28 million-worth of benefits flow into that economy as a result. That is why all parties are working to ensure that the event is a great success this year.

Kalahari Bushmen

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will seek to persuade the Government of Botswana to continue the water supply to the remaining Bushmen of the Central Kalahari Game Reserve, and generally to encourage those Bushmen who wish to go on living there to do so.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, our High Commissioner to Botswana regularly discusses issues surrounding the Bushmen who remain in the Kalahari Game Reserve with the Government of Botswana. He did this most recently on 22nd January with the Minister of Local Government.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply which, however, will not bring much comfort to these unfortunate people. First, in view of our original agreement when we gave Botswana her independence, do not Her Majesty's Government have a special duty to try to persuade the Government of Botswana to respect ILO Conventions 107 and 109 and thus to continue the Bushmen's right to enjoy the resources of their land? Secondly, in view of our excellent relations with the Government of Botswana, and, indeed, with the European Union—

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: —could we not also try to persuade the Government of Botswana to accept European Union funding which is available to help the Bushmen in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve to continue living as they wish to live?

Lord Grocott: My Lords, a kind of sixth political sense suggested to me that the noble Lord might mention the issue of Europe. I can say to him that the issue to which he rightly refers has regularly been raised. A commitment was given in 1997 by the Government of Botswana to a number of high commissioners, including our own, that while they wanted the Bushmen, the San people, to relocate they would not do that on any forcible basis. Of course, we are concerned at what is being proposed at present. However, I emphasise, as the noble Lord acknowledged, that we have the friendliest of long-standing, good relations with the Government of Botswana. There are good ways of discussing issues between friends. That is the way that the matter is being discussed.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, can the noble Lord fathom why the Government of Botswana wish to banish the Bushmen?

Lord Grocott: My Lords, that is a question, obviously, that needs to be addressed to the Government of Botswana. It is not my job to express the view of the Government of Botswana but the President has stated that the Government of Botswana would like these people to live in more settled communities where health, education and other facilities can more easily be provided. Many of them have moved. I believe that there are about 500 people still remaining in the Kalahari Game Reserve. As I said, this issue has been raised regularly. It was raised most recently at a high level when President Mogae of Botswana visited the United Kingdom last June. It was raised with him by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that as Botswana borders Zimbabwe hundreds of refugees flee Zimbabwe for that country each week? Given the good relationships that the noble Lord mentioned, what help do the Government plan to give Botswana to deal with further difficulties the Kalahari Bushmen will no doubt experience resulting from the ever mounting number of refugees fleeing Zimbabwe?

Lord Grocott: My Lords, not for the first time during my short period in this House I rather wish we had a Speaker who could rule what is or is not in order in relation to the Question on the Order Paper. The Question concerns the Bushmen of the Kalahari. The issues to which the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, referred are the kind of issues which, as she knows, are discussed in the various fora of the Commonwealth and in other institutions. If I may say so, if she wants a specific Question on refugees from Zimbabwe to Botswana, obviously, it is within the rules of the House to table a precise Question on that subject.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, if no one else wants to intervene, can I ask the noble Lord to understand that the situation is much more urgent than he suggests because the Government of Botswana have threatened to cut off tomorrow the only water pump serving these people who want to remain where they are and continue their way of life? They are being forced to live on land where there is no water because others, such as refugees, have occupied the land where they have an ancient right to live. Can the noble Lord also ask Mr David Merry, the High Commissioner, to examine the allegations, now widespread, of torture of Bushmen and of their being prevented hunting on their land using ancient methods?

Lord Grocott: My Lords, these issues are raised. However, I caution the noble Lord when he makes a human rights allegation of that kind. It is right to say that the Government of Botswana have a very good human rights record, by any comparison, not just within the region but internationally, with proper procedures for dealing with such allegations when they occur. I agree with the noble Lord that this is an important issue. As I said, it is an issue on which the Government have expressed concern. The High Commissioner has visited the area, although he has been in that post only since last September, and plans to visit it again. I absolutely assure the noble Lord that the matter will be kept under constant review.

NHS Trusts: Complaints Procedure

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What proposals they have to make more effective the manner in which National Health Service hospital trusts handle patient complaints.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are currently reforming the NHS complaints procedure, following an independent evaluation of the current system. The procedure must be simple to use and easily accessible for patients. We want a system that is robust and fair, has a strong independent element and provides effective redress.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that welcome reply. Will he join me in paying tribute to the staff who successfully treat millions of patients every year in our National Health Service on the back of rising investment? Does he agree that it would be irresponsible for a Member of this House or another place—a Back-Bencher or a party leader—to raise the complaint of a named patient without first consulting the hospital and the doctors concerned? Should not the patient come before the politics?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I would not disagree with my noble friend. In individual cases it is of course very much for politicians to check the facts before making statements. People in this country support the NHS and want it to do well. Informed attacks on the services provided by doctors and nurses do untold damage to the morale of dedicated people.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, do not the events of last week demonstrate just how hollow are the Secretary of State's promises to decentralise the NHS?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords. In the speech that he gave to the NHS Modernisation Network two weeks ago the Secretary of State made it clear that we want to decentralise down to individual NHS trusts. We believe that that is the best way to allow for the innovation and development of services. In a situation in which a patient has caused information to come into the public domain, it is appropriate, if the NHS trust concerned wishes to do so, to give factual comments on the case that is so raised.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will the Minister accept a complaint from me on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Corbett? Clearly, his treatment for amnesia about practices in the House of Commons before 1997 has been singularly unsuccessful.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am afraid that it is noble Lords opposite who suffer rather more from amnesia. They seem to forget that their record on the NHS led, as the Kennedy report said only a few months ago, to a service in which there was under-investment and which lacked capacity, and there were falling numbers of staff in training. Let us get on the record the facts about the party opposite's stewardship of the NHS.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that for many years the complaints procedure for patients has been very slow and cumbersome? If it was quickened up, not so many people would have to go to the press. Slowness is the problem. In his Answer, the Minister did not use the word "quick".

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as I said in my Answer, there has been an evaluation of the way in which the current complaints system operates. I accept the noble Baroness's point. Four key problem areas were identified in the current system: that complaints were badly handled and took a long time to resolve; that communication between staff and patients was sometimes poor; that the process was not sufficiently independent; and that there were no real mechanisms for learning lessons. We take all of those points and seek, in introducing a revised complaints system, to deal with each of them effectively.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, may I say that the Question is very well framed? I have worked on the Citizens Charter for many years and accept that patients who are ill, afraid and frightened to complain need the best possible access. I also point out that—

Noble Lords: Question!

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although the NHS is free at the point of delivery, the NHS is not free? It is paid for, as is any other service. Does he also agree that a patient within the NHS should expect the complaints procedure to be as good as, if not better than, that in the private sector?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly accept that the NHS must have an effective complaints procedure. On the point about vulnerable people who may be concerned about the consequences of making complaints, yes, I believe that we have to make sure that it is safe for people and their relatives to make complaints. We are doing that partly through the new arrangements that we are bringing forward, in which independent advocacy services will be available for members of the public to make complaints. We are also requiring every trust to establish a patient advisory liaison service to deal with problems as they arise; that will ensure that problems are dealt with and that complaints need not be made.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords—

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, if we are getting facts on the record, why was a named patient—

Noble Lords: Order!

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, why was a named patient branded as racist by the Government?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I declare not a present interest but my previous experience—for 10 years I dealt with NHS patient complaints both as a district health authority member and as chair of the Whittington Hospital NHS Trust. Does the Minister agree that the prime objective of the complaints procedure should, if at all possible, be to resolve the situation for the individual patient and to build a considered understanding of the causes of complaints in order to improve services overall? If he agrees with that, should not all politicians, from whatever side, understand that setting off a media feeding frenzy, far from achieving those objectives, can cause lasting distress, pain and damage to the individuals involved, whether patients or staff?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords, of course. My noble friend will know, through her chairmanship of the Whittington Trust in particular, of the splendid work that that trust has done to improve services to patients. In relation to the question of a speedy resolution, I very much agree. Feedback from the current complaints service shows that the initial resolution stage has received many commendations from the public; more criticism comes in at the second stage. We need to learn lessons. That is why we have to ensure that we have information about complaints—we must be able to track through and identify areas in which there are common complaints across the health system as a whole. We should then have a better chance of eradicating systematic failures.

Business of the House: Debates this Day

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Clement-Jones and the Lord Wallace of Saltaire set down for today shall each be limited to three hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food and Nutrition

Lord Clement-Jones: rose to call attention to the case for a proactive and sustainable government policy on food production, food standards and nutrition; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, the timing of this debate is extremely opportune, in light of the publication yesterday of the report by Sir Don Curry, Farming & Food. At a recent presentation, Professor Tim Lang of Thames Valley University gave an interesting perspective on the politics of food. In the 18th and 19th centuries, he pointed out, the British rioted about the quality of food, food availability and the market system; but not in the 20th or 21st centuries. Nowadays, we obviously have to content ourselves with the lesser excitement of debates in this House.
	That is not to say that there have not been some very significant issues and problems that have made us think about food safety and supply in recent years: E. coli outbreaks, salmonella, BSE and foot and mouth disease. It is those crises that have jolted us all into greater consciousness of the importance of the need for healthy food and the need to look at the food chain as a whole when discussing any one part of food policy.
	In all surveys, the public have demonstrated that they place a high value on food health—in particular, in the FSA survey in September—even when that is set against the fundamentals of price and convenience.
	As regards safety, in the survey published by the National Consumer Council this January as many as 77 per cent of consumers expressed concerns about the effects of pesticide use on their children. That health and safety of food must be the principal objective of food policy was emphasised only last week in a very important report, Why Health is the Key to the Future of Farming and Food, edited by Professor Tim Lang and Dr Geof Rayner. The conclusion that we can draw is that, if we aim for health objectives, environmental benefits will also be achieved.
	In the massive subject area of health and food, what are the key issues? First, and above all, is that of nutrition. In this age, and in Britain in particular, we are characterised by the twin problems of obesity and food poverty. One in two people in the UK is overweight and one in five is obese. In this country, 8 million people are obese. That is a trebling since 1980. If current trends continue, more than a quarter of all UK adults will be obese by 2010. The National Audit Office estimated that obesity is responsible for 30,000 premature deaths in this country. One in 10 six year-olds may now be obese—a doubling over the past 10 years. Estimates of costs in terms of cardiovascular disease, cancer and strokes, which need to be treated by the NHS, dental disease and knock-on effects to the wider economy in terms of community care, illness and absence from work vary from £2.5 billion to £10 billion.
	As regards food poverty, in 1999 the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that some 4 million people in the United Kingdom do not have access to a healthy diet. The Child Poverty Action Group report, Poverty Bites, of December 2001 claimed that about 2 million children are living in families which cannot afford to eat healthily. Others put that figure higher. Many families spend only £25 or £30 per week on their food. Healthy food does cost more. There is a lack of shops selling healthy food in poor areas. But it is not all about affordability. There has been a loss of cooking skills, and convenience can take the place of health. Such issues all contribute to the problem.
	What steps can we take to counter those twin problems? First, we need proper food education in schools. A survey by the Doctor Patient Partnership found that one-quarter of children eat sweets and crisps for breakfast. We need to encourage children to take more exercise. The National Audit Office report last year and the subsequent Public Accounts Committee report made some useful suggestions on that score, saying that at least two hours' exercise a week should be the entitlement of every child.
	The NHS Plan announced a series of proposals to improve diet and nutrition by 2004. Well, we are halfway to 2004. What has been the effect of those government measures? Government certainly need to do more in this area, with schools in particular, to promote a balanced diet and healthy eating and to counteract the weight of advertising by food manufacturers of what are often sugary and fatty foods.
	The National School Fruit Scheme, which has been piloted in 500 schools and is aimed at giving a piece of fruit a day to young children in schools and kindergartens but which will not be fully operational until 2004, has the right idea. But why should that scheme be funded by the New Opportunities Fund? Why is it not contained within mainstream funding?
	The Department of Health National Diet and Nutrition Survey showed that children's consumption of fruit and vegetables is particularly low, with one in five four to six year-olds eating no fruit at all in a typical week. Surveys of older children—in particular, the one carried out by MORI last September—showed what a mountain we have to climb. The average 11 to 16 year-old is eating fewer than 13 portions of fruit and vegetables a week. Some children do not even recognise common vegetables. We are storing up trouble for the future if we do not tackle this issue even more energetically.
	As regards access to healthy food, the problem of food poverty and food deserts was described in the Acheson report in 1998. A working group was set up by Tessa Jowell, MP, when she was Minister with responsibility for public health and it reported two years later. The problem was recognised by the Social Exclusion Unit in 1999. The Food Poverty (Eradication) Bill—a Private Member's Bill—has taken up the cause of food poverty. The key problem is the decline in the small shop with all the underlying reasons for its inability to compete with the major supermarkets.
	But what is being done to counteract that problem? Who is mapping access to food retailers in these areas and charting the decline of the neighbourhood shop? We need a proactive national policy designed to improve access to fresh food in such areas. We cannot simply rely on market solutions.
	Of course, the solution will differ in each area. The work done by the East London Health Action Zone to help to set up food co-operatives and breakfast clubs for children and to teach cooking skills is a particularly good example. Central government need to set a central strategy, and local authorities should take the lead in assessing the problem in their area. They need to implement solutions tailored to the needs of the locality in order to encourage appropriate retailers back into an area or farmers' markets or food co-operatives, whatever the appropriate solution may be.
	In order to improve diet and nutrition, we also need to improve labelling systems. The Food Advisory Committee recently described the situation well. Much labelling seems to be deliberately designed to confuse, with words such as "farmhouse", "pure", "fresh" and "country style" being applied to food which is far from it. The Food Standards Agency's action on that aspect of labelling is very welcome.
	We live in a world where Sunny Delight, promoted as healthy, contains only 5 per cent orange juice. In addition, we have ham which can be largely water and soya, chickens which are 40 per cent water, chicken liver pate which contains pork, farmed trout and salmon which are died pink, and fish fingers which may be only half fish, and so on. We need to go further, and so does the European Union. Consumers need information in order to make real choices. They need to know where their food comes from, whether it contains major allergens, what production methods are being used, whether it has GM ingredients, and what its nutritional value is, in particular in respect of children's food.
	There is also a great need for major retailers, food producers and farmers to agree on industry-wide food assurance schemes, such as the "red tractor" scheme and the new British standards of traceability. All that is part of,
	"building the bridge of trust between producer and consumer",
	as Sir Donald Curry put it in his report.
	The second major issue, which although it is of great public concern has less impact in health terms, is the question of pesticides, antibiotics, hormone disrupters in food and food packaging. There has been insufficient action to follow up the findings that the use of antibiotics in animals can lead to resistant bacteria in humans. The House of Lords report in 1998 pointed to the dangers and, last year, research from St Bartholomew's Hospital, published in the New Scientist, gave further cause for concern when it showed that children already had resistance to antibiotics which they had not even taken.
	There is also cause for concern in the light of findings as yet unpublished by Liverpool University researchers, which the Food Standards Agency clearly takes seriously, of a cocktail effect which makes food containing residues of more than one pesticide many times more toxic than individual chemicals. We need to look at pesticide reduction policies rather than simply ban them only when they are proven to be harmful.
	In addition, for some years there has been an intense debate on the question of food additives, with manufacturers strenuously denying that their additives cause harm. Clearly we need to put the precautionary principle into practice here as elsewhere in our food standards policy; it should not simply be left to progressive retailers to enforce. There is a strong case, as there always has been, for putting the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the Pesticides Safety Directorate under the Food Standards Agency.
	As to food production, our current system, with producer subsidies from the EU under the CAP and the sourcing methods of our major retailers, has had a knock-on effect—a decline in UK fruit and vegetable production and a vast increase in imports. From the evidence, it now seems very likely that the form of food production in this country which will achieve both health and environmental objectives is not intensive, large-scale farming and long-distance transport of food but smaller-scale, more local food production with full traceability. That would of course also improve our trade gap in fresh produce.
	Although intensive farming is lauded by some as leading to cheap food, its proponents ignore the externalities in terms of its real costs with regard to its effect on the environment and, in some cases, health. Those externalities may consist of the effect of the use of nitrates. Our estuaries are badly polluted with fertilisers and that has a major impact on fish stocks. The effect on the environment of the pollution caused by fish farming is also a matter of growing concern, in particular, in relation to wild salmon.
	The recent report from Sustain entitled, Eating Oil, demonstrates the extraordinary economics of our food imports, where food is imported from thousands of miles away. Memorably, it cites how the ingredients for a Christmas dinner can have travelled over 24,000 miles before reaching the shop. Airfreight of food has doubled in extent between 1989 and 1999. By contrast, what may appear to be more expensive food now might be cheaper in the long run for society and will certainly benefit rural communities and the environment more.
	There have already been knock-on effects to the developing world of our intensive agriculture with the growing of inappropriate cash crops, leading to fewer food crops produced for local needs, worsening nutrition and, in some cases, major damage to the environment. As Sir Don Curry concludes, we need to make much better use of modulation of EU production subsidies to encourage a more sustainable approach to food production. That is clearly central to any change in food policy.
	The mid-term review of the common agricultural policy in 2002-03 must take the opportunity of moving the CAP towards a more sustainable food policy through transferring resources to the so-called second pillar of the CAP. Reform of the CAP would certainly be the logical outcome if the EU took note of its own White Paper on food safety, published in 2000, which advocated an integrated approach to food from farm to table. Integrated crop management clearly offers benefits. Many of us also believe that there is a case for a more positive move to organic production, not only on environmental grounds but also, particularly, in light of the fact that 75 per cent of our organic food is currently imported.
	In conclusion, we clearly need a comprehensive food plan tackling the key problems, looking at the food chain as a whole, from the point of view of health, environment, society and the economy. Above all, as Sir Don urges, there is a need to re-connect the farmer to the consumer and the countryside.
	What I have described is not some kind of bucolic idyll, a romantic vision of past rural England; it is a hard-headed approach based on the appreciation that if we do not grasp this opportunity to reappraise our food policy, whether that relates to production, safety or nutrition, we are guaranteeing ourselves a future of ill health and environmental degradation. On these Benches, our vision is clear. I urge the Government to act now. I beg to move for Papers.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for bringing this matter to the Floor of the House. Perhaps I may say what an important subject this is and how pleased I am that the Government have taken it so seriously since they were elected in 1997. I start by declaring an interest because of my long-standing association as a member of the British Co-operative Movement and as a parent trying to persuade two young teenagers to eat their greens and fruit.
	This is, indeed, an appropriate time for this debate. We are a year or so into the work of the Food Standards Agency. Yesterday's announcement of the report of the farming and food commission also lends an urgency to this discussion. Two or three years ago the European Union sub-committee, of which I was a member, looked at this issue, we looked at the work of the European Food Safety Authority and how it would relate to the proposed British Food Standards Agency. In those deliberations we were concerned about how to enforce food standards throughout Europe, particularly when food scares happening in one country needed to be dealt with across Europe. I believe that the report, which raised potent and important issues, has not yet received the attention it deserves.
	The Government in their manifesto of 1997 committed themselves to the establishment of a food standards agency. Indeed, the agency came into being in April 2000. As your Lordships will know, the agency is charged with protecting the public's health and consumer interests in relation to food. Last year, the agency produced a five-year plan entitled, Putting Consumers First. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Food Standards Agency for the professional and accessible way in which it has established itself so far. I have accessed its website on several occasions since it has been up and running to ask questions about food safety and food standards. I have found it a good website to use and recommend it to your Lordships. It is also extremely accessible because it contains information about the agency's deliberations. It is an example of how such a body should run.
	It is worth noting that the key priorities which the Food Standards Agency have set itself have been driven by the concerns and anxieties of ordinary people. As a result, it is possible that it may succeed in its overriding objective to become the UK's most reliable source of advice and information about food. The five-year plan it set itself aims to reduce food-borne illness by 20 per cent by improving food safety right through the food chain; to help people to improve their dietary health, which echoes, quite rightly, the advocation of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones; to promote honest and informative labelling to help consumers; to promote best practice within the food industry; and to improve the enforcement of food law.
	I am impressed because the success of the FSA is an important contribution to the objective of a sustainable government policy on food production, food standards and nutrition. It is not possible to divide those issues between a department which deals with farming and one which deals with health. I am pleased and welcome the fact that the Government have seen this as an issue which has to be addressed across all government departments.
	The Co-operative Group—as a farmer, through its farming operations on over 90,000 acres; as a food processor holding substantial dairy interests, and as a food retailer with over 1,000 stores—believes that it is only through co-operation across the food chain that a sustainable food and farming sector will be created. For example, the Co-operative Group is on record as welcoming the establishment of an English food collaborative panel, which will draw together people to encourage co-operative activity across the sector. For example, farmers should co-operate for mutual benefit in the areas of knowledge transfer, benchmarking, shared kit and developing new added-value markets.
	I also welcome the recommendation in the farming and food commission report that a food chain forum should be established, part of whose work will be to look at how the demand for fresh foods can be increased. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, rightly pointed out, processed foods are a huge problem in people's diets. On a personal note I have been trying to banish processed foods from my family's diet. Indeed, it is not only slightly more expensive but involves more time. For families who are working and very busy, that is not something to be under-estimated.
	Since the early 1990s, the Co-operative Movement has been pioneering in its work on food, and taking seriously its responsibilities to provide wholesome food, which is one of its founding principles. For example, in 1998 the Co-op led the way in telling customers exactly how much salt was contained in a product. It remains the only retailer to state that information clearly on the front of packs. In 1995 it became the first retailer to label calories and fat content per serving on the front of packs. In 1996 it advised parents about the sugar contained in drinks and fruit juice which could lead to tooth decay and poor nutrition. In 2000 it launched the first of its food crimes reports, which committed all of us in the Co-operative Movement during the hours of children's TV to a voluntary ban on advertising of all food and drink products high in fat, sugar or salt. I am proud as a co-operator of that record.
	In conclusion, the question we need to ask citizens, consumers and taxpayers is, "What should we expect from the countryside, farming and food sector?" There is a highly complex interrelationship between citizens, consumers and taxpayers and their expectations of the countryside, farming and food sectors, with different dynamics—and not always congruous dynamics—coming into play at different times. The consumer wants convenient access to a range of different types of outlets—retail and catering—which provide a wide range of safe quality food at affordable prices with year-round availability.
	They also want food produced to high animal welfare standards, with minimum artificial inputs. But different consumers have different demands at different times, and sometimes those demands are incompatible. Under those circumstances, the job of government is to push forward for greater information, greater education, for appropriate powers and for the joined-up government that they have shown so far.

Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I thank very much the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for introducing this debate. I wish also to say how much I am looking forward to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich.
	I shall confine my remarks to some of the problems of food poisoning and how best to promote a healthy diet. In fairness to the Government, however much the authorities try to ensure that food is wholesome there will always be some people who upset the system and create small-scale, or even large-scale, havoc; such is human nature.
	Some time ago a dinner of over 100 people took place in London. Half of them developed hepatitis as a result. Investigations revealed that the hepatitis virus was present in the raspberries which were served. That confused the investigators until they visited those up north who were picking the raspberries. They found that the workers were putting the raspberries into waterproof polythene bags. They were then weighed and the workers were paid according to the weight. They found that some of the workers were artificially increasing the weight of those polythene bags by attending to the usual necessities of nature. Although most people passed sterile urine, one of the raspberry pickers unfortunately was secreting the hepatitis virus in his urine. Human nature can be extraordinarily perverse.
	Other problems arise through pure ignorance. Some patients were found to have a particularly nasty type of food poisoning known as Campylobacter, which is Greek for a curved bacterium. At first it seemed that the infection was coming through chickens. I suppose that in one sense that was correct. An investigation into the way the chickens were prepared found that they were electrocuted upside down on a conveyor belt. Electrocution inevitably caused contraction of all the chicken's muscles. That encouraged the gut to disgorge its contents which then ran down to cover the chicken from head to toe—or perhaps we should say from toe to head. The chickens were then put in a giant vat which produced a kind of bacterial soup. After that the chickens were cut up and packaged.
	When the packages were opened the chickens were chopped up on a wooden board, either in a restaurant or at home. The pieces of chicken were then sterilised by cooking. That is fine; the organism was killed. Unfortunately, the same board was often used to chop up salad and so contamination spread through the salad to the patient who became quite ill. When these unfortunate practices come to light, publicity goes some way to eliminating them. But so long as human beings are involved, such is human nature that new hazards will constantly arise. No amount of legislation will prevent that.
	As to promoting a healthy diet, one of the most extraordinary and effective experiments ever carried out was in 1939 at the beginning of the war. At that time, one-third of British and one-third of American people were either underfed or ill fed. The introduction of food rationing changed that situation overnight. The ration book contained the coupons which provided people with exactly the right amount and the right kind of food every week—not too little, not too much. It was impossible to become fat unless one was on the black market. As children in those days, we used to point the finger at fat people because they were on the black market. The rationed food contained all the right vitamins, proteins, carbohydrates and fat and, better still, provided a high roughage diet in the form of the national loaf.
	Although this ideal diet produced a population which was much healthier than it had been in the past, there were certain problems. There were huge rows in another place with objections being raised to the 100 per cent wholemeal national loaf. I should explain that in wholemeal flour the bran contains phytic acid which binds on to calcium and prevents its absorption. Calcium absorption at the best of times is not very good—only one-third of it is actually absorbed. If one's nutrition is fairly critical, as in times of warfare, there is a real danger that people might become deficient in calcium. So the Government legislated to have calcium put in the flour. Unfortunately, many MPs objected. They thought that it was an infringement of liberty. Fortunately for the people, their objections were not listened to.
	Of course, one cannot act in that way in peacetime. However, in the United States it is a different matter. There they simply override objections to altering the food. It was discovered, for instance, that spina bifida could be prevented if a pregnant lady has enough of the vitamin folic acid in her body at the time of conception. But it is rather difficult to arrange that. So the American Government simply said that all flour must contain folic acid.
	Why is a high roughage diet so desirable? It has been known to be desirable for thousands of years. As the Bishops' Bench will well know, the first mention of it is in the Book of Daniel. The young teenager and his companions refused to eat the food in the royal palace. When it was pointed out to them that they might be put to death for refusing the food, Daniel requested a 10-day trial of a high roughage diet. It was compared with the rich diet from the king's table. We could say that this was the first clinical trial of its kind. Noble Lords will remember that those on the high roughage diet did better.
	It was Denis Birkett who, in the 1960s and 1970s, drew attention to the problem of a low roughage diet. In Nigeria, for instance, those on a sensible diet out in the country do not have all the problems that civilisation does. But the moment people start moving into Lagos they develop appendicitis, haemorrhoids, diverticular disease and so on. The other advantage of a high roughage diet is that it prevents people becoming too obese.
	During recent years it has become clear that anti-oxidants, vitamin E, and so on, are important constituents of diet in preventing disease. The good news is that anti-oxidants are prevalent in good wine—both red and white.
	I have tried to draw attention to the fact that however hard governments try to minimise food poisoning, so long as there are human beings around one will have trouble. As to the promotion of healthy eating, perhaps one of the greatest needs is to concentrate, as already mentioned, on trying to reduce obesity. Perhaps the best advice of all was given in this House some years ago—moderation in all things and not too much of that either.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, that is the best speech that I have heard from the Conservative Front Bench for a long time. I much look forward to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich.
	My noble friend deserves a good deal of credit for introducing the debate. I agree with nearly all he said, and particularly with the need to improve people's diet. It is obvious to all that we are in grave trouble with the kind and amount of food that people eat.
	However, I want to concentrate on the future of farming. There is a tendency just now to look on farming as one of the great nuisances that we have to bear and that the farmers are squealing somewhat so we have to put them right and force them to be better.
	I am one of the few people who farmed pre-war in a purely organic way, because that was how we farmed in Aberdeenshire. We had three years of growing grass, then a year of oats, then a year of turnips, then we sowed the crop back to grass. On a 400-acre farm, that was how system worked. It was very expensive in labour, but the labour was not expensive—people were not paid enough. We had 10 men on that farm. One could not consider operating in that way today.
	We should consider the problems with herbicides, pesticides and fertilisers. All sorts of organisations have expressed extraordinary fear of those three things. Herbicides have improved the yields of a large number of crops without spoiling the ultimate result. Pesticides are extremely important. Of course they must be regulated, but they have done a great deal of good for farmers, with the result that they have been able to produce crops at a reasonable price—not an expensive one. Fertiliser merely adds some extra food for the plant and, again, raises yield.
	We cannot dismiss those as being a great danger to the whole community. The number of complaints about being affected by pesticides on produce sold is not large. It is difficult to prove any really bad results from it. We must consider the matter in a practical way. The biggest danger from pesticides and herbicides is of course to the operator. I need say no more about that because the noble Countess, Lady Mar, is present, and she has done more than any other Member of the House to draw attention to those real dangers. Obviously, we must take care in that regard.
	I turn to the business of sustainable farming. It is very important. To me, it means maintaining the bacteria and humus content of the soil. The Macaulay Institute and others are researching that. Modern combine farming, with a proper mixture and rotation, can produce an improving humus content in the soil. We cannot throw away those advantages. If we in this country are to farm in competition, we need modern practices to compete with farmers from all over the world. At the same time, we must ensure that everything is properly regulated. The new Food Standards Agency has started in the right way, and should be a most useful body to reassure the population about their fears.
	I fear the term "modulation". I understand that what the Government want to do—I should be glad if the Minister would tell us exactly how they are to do it—is to remove up to 10 per cent of the subsidy available for crop production paid to farmers by the acre and apply it to the environment. If that means planting and maintaining more hedges, or building more dykes or more stone walls, I do not see how that will ultimately benefit the environment. If we are to use that money for that, farmers will have to do the work. For goodness' sake, let us have a decent programme of planting, instead of concentrating on the hedge, which is no longer a practical proposition for fencing.
	The biggest thing for which the Government must prepare in agriculture is the expansion of the EU. There are enormous areas of Poland, Hungary and other countries that are seeking entry where people can farm and make money at present prices without any trouble. I know people who are doing that, simply because labour there is so cheap. Do we say, "Right, you miserable farmers, you must compete with that"? We must have a European policy. If we have a decent policy and take care of all the dangers, the farmers of this country will live up to expectations and produce sustainable agriculture.

The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich: My Lords, I first take this opportunity to express my warm thanks to the officers and staff of your Lordships' House for their kindness and care in my introduction, and in particular their patience with my chronic sense of direction. That is much appreciated. I am glad to be able to take part in this debate about a policy for sustainable food production, not least because of its roots in the Book of Daniel.
	Often, when there is a crisis, people think again about some things that they previously took for granted. Early in the Curry report on the future of farming and food is the comment:
	"The trauma of Foot and Mouth Disease caused many people in the farming and food industry to think about what they do from first principles".
	That has certainly been reflected in Suffolk. During the past two or three years, Suffolk suffered first from swine fever and then from the effects of foot and mouth disease. But during the same period—a devastating period for those involved in farming and other businesses in rural areas—the number of farmers' markets rose by a factor of about 10 and new businesses came into being through the farming industry. The result has been a shortening of the food chain—especially between consumer and producer—and a whole series of jobs have been retained within the rural community.
	I am not for one moment suggesting that a sustainable food production policy can be put in place simply by returning to a local economy of supply and demand. I want to draw attention to the important relationship between farming and the rural community and the fact that it involves much more than food production. My concern is underlined in another report, published at the end of last year, this time by the Sustainable Development Commission, which provided some of the analysis on sustainability for the Curry commission. The report analysed evidence from 16 organisations—not only farming and retailing, but ecological and community interests.
	A section of the report has, for an official report, a rather whimsical title. Suddenly, one comes across the heading, "Issues given surprisingly little attention". That seemed to me a gentle euphemism for gaping holes or serious omissions; but it has a nice feel to it. At least, it encourages one to read on.
	Under that heading, the commission identified four or five important issues which, it felt, had not been sufficiently addressed in the evidence it had received. One of those was the failure of any of the submissions to make real connections between farming and the vitality of rural economies and communities. The report says that no submission gave detailed recommendations as to how farming could contribute to rural culture. The report also suggests that further research is needed in that area. It is interesting that that is reflected in the Curry report itself and its recommendation that there should be a re-connection of agriculture with its own context.
	The relationship between farming and rural communities needs careful attention in any consideration of a sustainable food production policy. Farming is far more than just the production of food. If that is not understood, some serious long-term mistakes will be made. It would be bizarre to produce a sustainable food production policy if it undermined the sustainability of producer communities, here or overseas—perhaps particularly overseas. I hope very much that, in any future consideration of the subject, that subtle but vital component—the relationship between farming and rural culture and community—will be kept firmly in mind.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones for the opportunity to speak about a subject that is close to my heart—food. In particular, I want to speak about food in relation to children's health and well-being.
	First, I pay tribute to the excellent and thoughtful maiden speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich. Before Bishop Richard came to the East of England, he ministered to flocks in the North East and the South West. So, he has had a good view of agriculture—nay, shepherding—throughout the country. He has had a deep interest in rural affairs for a number of years. Between 1982 and 1987, he was chaplain for agriculture in Hereford diocese, before moving to Ludlow and, then, to Taunton, as suffragan bishop. Since he became Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, he has had to help the rural community through a series of major problems, including an outbreak of classical swine fever and the ravages of foot and mouth disease. The people have found him a great support in troubled times.
	On a lighter note, I see that one of the right reverend Prelate's leisure activities is bumble-bees. I suppose that I should say that I look forward to hearing him buzzing around the Chamber for many years to come. Your Lordships would have been disappointed if I had not said that.
	It is a simple truth that we are what we eat. Food not only gives us the building blocks for every cell of our body, it also gives us opportunities for relaxation, social interaction, expressing our cultural heritage, and artistic expression. However, there are enormous dangers inherent in getting the quality and balance of the food that we eat wrong, so important is it to our health and longevity.
	Sadly, in this prosperous country, there are still around 4 million people suffering from food poverty, 2 million of whom are children. Food poverty is the inability to afford or have regular access to a range of foods from which to select a healthy and varied diet. Sadly, it is widespread. Food Justice, the campaign to eradicate food poverty, claims that an average of 5,000 people in every parliamentary constituency may be malnourished. The consequences in ill health are massive. An estimated four out of every 10 people admitted to hospital are malnourished in some way.
	The effect on children, in particular, is serious. Babies whose mothers do not eat a healthy balanced diet as they grow in the womb are underweight at birth and are susceptible to heart disease, diabetes and cancer. Young babies whose mothers do not breast-feed and cannot afford good quality formula milk may be fed cows' milk and become anaemic. Children who are malnourished are susceptible to all sorts of infections. They lack energy and find it difficult to concentrate at school. Victorian diseases such as rickets and tuberculosis are again being reported.
	The annual financial cost of poor diet in the United Kingdom—around £10 billion, as my noble friend said—puts the costs of BSE and foot and mouth disease in the shade, enormous though they are. The cost in human life is also great. Dr Mike Rayner of the University of Oxford has shown that there is a large correlation between the incidence of coronary heart disease and cardiovascular problems and poor eating. About 250,000 premature deaths result from such diseases, and the quality of life of such patients is much reduced. The number of early deaths from malnutrition has been estimated as the equivalent of a serious air crash every day.
	In order to consider solutions to food poverty, we must study the causes. Money certainly comes into it. The poor face malnourishment, but the rich do not. Income is clearly a factor. The cash available to a family on benefit to spend on food is only 63p per day for a primary schoolchild, 93p for older children and £2.37 for adults. Researchers have estimated that an adequate diet for a family of two adults with children aged 16 and 10 costs £69.20 per week; yet the food allowance in such a family's benefit payments was estimated at just £41.10, a shortfall of nearly £30 per week.
	Working families have similar problems. Dr Mike Nelson of the University of London has calculated that the minimum wage needs to be £7 per hour to allow working families enough money for a proper diet. How do families on benefit or the minimum wage manage to feed their children adequately? The answer, of course, is that they do so with extreme difficulty.
	Someone with an inadequate budget must be very clever at shopping and cooking. I shall return to the matter of shopping later, but, first, I should like to say something about cooking. Many people in poor families are extremely creative about how they make the cheapest ingredients appetising and balance their family's nutrition. However, that requires them to know how to do it. Recent changes in the national curriculum mean that many children go through school having studied little or no home economics and with little idea about nutrition. Part of the reason for that is that there are no special training courses for home economics teachers, so there is a shortage of people to teach it. Our children can get through life without knowing the chemical formula for ammonia or the capital of Brazil, but they cannot get through life in good health without knowing how to feed themselves.
	There are many wonderful pre-prepared foods in the shops. Rich people can get away with not knowing how to cook; poor people cannot. We cannot rely on the TV cooks to do the job for us. It may be true that food has become the new sex, attracting millions of viewers to the cookery programmes of Jamie Oliver, Delia Smith and Nigella Lawson, but we cannot rely on such kitchen gods and goddesses to educate the population about nutrition, even though the dishes that they prepare are very wholesome. We must do it in schools. I call on the Government to do something about it. Children are not learning to cook at their mother's knee, as I did and as my children did.
	Poor families may also not have access to good cheap food. Although it is true that the cost of food has not risen as much as the price of housing, transport and clothes in recent years, the cost of healthy food has risen more than the average. For example, the average increase in food prices between 1982 and 1995 was 62 per cent, but the price of oranges rose by 80 per cent, fresh fish by 110 per cent and potatoes by 250 per cent. At the same time, chocolate biscuits rose in price by only 54 per cent, sausages by 37 per cent and cream by only 12 per cent.
	Access to a wide variety of cheap food also depends on where people live and whether they have transport. Thirty per cent of villages have no shops. Out-of-town supermarkets are no use to someone without a car. Smaller shops, in competition with the buying power of the supermarkets, must charge more for food in order to make a profit. The savings that can be made by buying supermarket economy lines, multipacks or large sizes are not available to those who must carry heavy bags home on the bus or on foot.
	Therefore, I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and call on the Government to address the problem of food poverty by implementing policies that only governments can, and to have a clear strategy to eradicate it. Only governments can change the planning laws, benefit levels, transport policy, the national curriculum and tax incentives. I beg the Minister to take hold of the issue. Millions of families will thank him. The country will benefit. The environment and the future of our children will be protected if he does so.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for introducing the debate. I should declare an interest in that all my life I have been involved in British agriculture. I am worried about the present state of British agriculture and its ability to participate in the issues to which the report refers. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was understandably worried about matters such as the fact that one out of two people is overweight, while one in five is obese. He suggested that the Government should try to tell people to stop eating sweets. All that is perfectly correct, but I wonder whether that is the job of government. It is part of educating children, undertaken by schools and parents. I do not think that that is part of a government's job. Indeed, I fear that many of the recommendations will encourage even more bureaucracy, with yet more committees and organisations set up to run and curtail.
	What will happen is what happens in every area of life. More and more bureaucracy will mean that schoolteachers will not have time to teach because they have to fill out forms; farmers will not have time to farm because they have to fill out forms and doctors will not have time to doctor because of all the forms. Governments should try to halt that process. Every government try to stop it; we tried when we were in government. A Bill to cut out bureaucracy was introduced. I have temporarily forgotten its name. It was a colossal great thing with heaven knows how many schedules attached to it in the attempt to get rid of all the bureaucracy. One tends to feed on the other. Nevertheless, I beg the Government to try to cut down on all bureaucracy.
	The labelling of food is confusing. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to "farmhouse" bread. A further example can be found in restaurants with regard to peas. One establishment will serve "fresh" peas, another will serve "green" peas, while yet another will offer "garden" peas. What do those terms mean? It is a complicated matter and it is right that labelling should be made clear. At the moment, something can be labelled "British" if it is imported but then carved in a British factory. The fact is that when you think you are eating British pork, in reality it is Polish pork, although nothing on the label would tell you that that is the case.
	I see the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in his place. On previous occasions he will have heard what I am about to say. The Government are presiding over the biggest slump in British agriculture for a century and nothing is being done about it. I should emphasise that point: nothing at all is being done about it. The only desire appears to be to acquire cheap food. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, remarked that a Christmas dinner can travel 24,000 miles before it lands on your plate. No doubt that is perfectly true; I saw the report. It is no surprise when you get pork from Poland, bacon from Denmark and chicken from Thailand. All that is being done for cheapness.
	However, nothing is being done to support British agriculture. This morning the Daily Telegraph commented in relation to the report that farmers must either "Adapt or Die". I thought that that was a staggering headline. Some 6,000 farmers have gone out of business over the past three years, while 60,000 jobs have been lost. I know of someone locally who farms, I believe, 1,500 acres. He has left farming. He told me that every single enterprise on his farm was losing money. Something has to be done about that. There is no point in telling farmers that they have to co-operate with processors, supermarkets and so forth when they cannot make any money whether or not they co-operate.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, in a moving and thought-provoking speech, made one particularly telling comment. He pointed out that the importance of agriculture and the rural environment is about much more than just food production. So it is and the right reverend Prelate was absolutely right to point that out. Agriculture involves, and is involved in, the whole of the rural economy. Agriculture both benefits from it and contributes to it.
	Last night the Evening Standard, commenting on the report on food and farming, stated that poor UK farming means that shoppers "pay too much". That is simply untrue. Potatoes may cost £150 per tonne, but potato crisps cost £8,500 per tonne. How can it be said that bad farming is making food expensive for consumers? A loaf of bread may cost 50p, but the wheat content of that loaf will have cost 3p. Again, how can it be said that British agriculture is ripping off the consumer? It simply is not so.
	I wish to touch on the current "in" word, organic farming. Everyone says that everything must be grown organically. I do not think that that is true. Ordinary farming has a great deal to be said for it. After all, the human body is nothing if not a great chemical factory. It ingests chemicals; it breaks down chemicals; it creates chemicals and it excretes chemicals. Thus it is perfectly reasonable to take chemicals into the body, provided of course that they are properly controlled. When you are ill and visit the doctor, he gives you a pill. That pill is nothing but a concoction of chemicals. We are grateful to doctors for providing us with chemicals. However, those chemicals are very carefully scrutinised—and quite rightly so. The chemicals used in agriculture should also be carefully scrutinised. Periodically a mistake will be made. That is inevitable. But to say that organic farming is the be all and the end all is, I believe, mistaken. Apart from anything else, if all the output of British agriculture were done on an organic basis, land the size of the whole of Europe would be required to sustain it.
	I am greatly worried by the fact that the Government say that they want to cut down on subsidies. I can understand why governments should want to get rid of subsidies—I should like us to be in that position—but if we do so, we must do it as part of Europe, and Europe must do it also. We in the United Kingdom cannot do it alone because if the others do not act as well, there will not be a level playing field. However, what worries me about the proposal is the modulation—transferring the subsidy from the food to the environment. The Government have suggested that that should rise to 10 per cent by 2004. That is only two years hence and means that the money that farmers will receive for their produce will fall in comparison with that given to our European competitors. I do not think that that is right. It will make it even more difficult for farmers to carry on. Putting subsidies into the environment will not mean that the person looking after that environment will be any better able to look after it and to carry on farming.
	I have a horrible feeling that the Government consider that the birds, the bugs and the beetles are more important than agriculture, producing food for human consumption. The two are complementary. They should not be adversaries. I hope that something will be done to help British agriculture out of its present parlous state.

Lord Geraint: My Lords, I shall confine my remarks to the production side as I know more about it. I am a farmer and I have been involved in marketing, exporting and importing meat for decades.
	I honestly believe that consumers will have to pay a great deal more for British-produced lamb, beef and other commodities over the coming 10 years. That is because young farmers are leaving the industry in their thousands, while those remaining on the land have had enough of the supermarkets controlling their lives and their destinies. Low incomes and the lack of any financial security are the main reasons given by youngsters for not wanting to follow in their parents footsteps. The latest survey carried out by the Farmers' Union of Wales shows that in Wales nearly 50 per cent of farmers' sons will not follow in their parents' footsteps to keep the traditional family farm going. Cheap food policy is taking its toll.
	Is the Minister in a position to inform the House when livestock markets will be allowed to operate freely without any restrictions and whether the Government have any plans to compensate auctioneers and farmers who operate livestock markets? John Thorley, chief executive of the National Sheep Association, said yesterday:
	"It is vitally important that people should understand that the entire sustainability of the hill and upland farming systems, which dominate livestock production throughout the UK, is based on variable production whose sustainability is directly linked to an auction system as the most effective means of creating the link between seller and buyer".
	Many producers are concerned about import controls. Can the Minister say what are the latest developments regarding importation of beef and lamb from foreign countries? In the year 2000 we imported 211,000 tons of beef and 118,000 tons of sheep meat. What are the current amounts of meat imported?
	Tesco, Sainsbury, Safeway, Asda and Somerfield account for 80 per cent of all grocery and meat sales. Tesco is the first supermarket to make a yearly profit of more than £1 billion. Supermarkets have more power over their suppliers and farmers than the Prime Minister has over his Cabinet. With supermarkets making billions of pounds profit every year and average farm incomes at such a low level—last year the figure was just over £4,000, which is lower than the minimum wage—who can blame farmers?
	Now that the supermarkets are in charge and control agricultural policies, what are the Government going to do to curb their powers? Some 94 per cent of farmers demand laws to regulate the activities of the retail giants. We need legislation to ensure fair play for all. Yesterday we debated the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food—a rehash of what has been said so many times before over the past 10 years. We need action, not words. Are the Government aware that more than half the farmers in Wales are part-timers?
	The Farmers' Union of Wales. NFU Scotland, Ulster Farmers Union and NFU Cymru Wales have reacted angrily to the policy commission straying into devolved agricultural policy. By recommending that the Government—together with their partner administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—increase the modulation rate to 10 per cent, farmers' unions believe that the commission is undermining the strategies that have already been drawn up in the devolved regions.
	As a young farmer more than 50 years ago, I was proud of the Labour Government's achievements in placing farming on a sound financial footing under the Agricultural Act 1947, but 50 years later, we see the present Government undoing all the good work of their forefathers. The Government are playing into the hands of big businesses, which have no respect for the small family farm. My advice to the Government is that they should pull themselves together to save our farming industry. Time is not on their side. The Government should introduce short-term policies now to stop young farmers leaving the land. Thousands have already left since the Government took office in 1997.
	Is there any scientific evidence to prove that an organic lamb is different from any other hill-bred lamb? I am sure that the public would be pleased to know.
	I welcome the European Parliament's plan to hold a committee of inquiry into the foot and mouth epidemic in Britain. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has ruled out a full public inquiry, against the wishes of the majority of producers and consumers. Considering the damage and financial losses the epidemic caused. there is an overwhelming case for a full public inquiry. The public, producers and the country are entitled to the truth. Nothing more, nothing less.

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for initiating this debate. It is a massive subject and, although three hours have been allocated, to my mind that is insufficient.
	Various phrases have been applied to the food chain. They include from farm to fork, from stable to table and—one I particularly like—from conception to consumption, which takes in animals and plants. All demand rigorous attention to each link of the food chain but not a rigid approach. The approach that I want to address is healthy and, in particular, animal-derived food.
	Animal-derived foods start at the farm, with healthy animals under good veterinary care and in good welfare conditions. Danger spots have been identified by other speakers. One area of particular interest to me is the undue use of antibiotics and the potential for antibiotic resistance to be transferred to patients through meat and meat products. Fortunately, use of antibiotics for animals is decreasing satisfactorily through the efforts of the British Veterinary Association and RUMA—Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture.
	Other hazards must include the food miles that have been mentioned in relation to Christmas turkeys. Produce may travel hundreds of miles before being offered for sale. That is of particular concern in livestock, where disease may spread. In the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease, the massive movement of sheep contributed enormously to the spread of the disease. Another aspect of excessive transport is the stress placed on animals before they go to slaughter. One cause is the paucity of abattoirs throughout the country, necessitating the major movement of animals for slaughter.
	The food chain extends to the kitchen, where much needs to be done on educating the housewife on general hygiene in cooking. My noble friend Lord McColl said how amply that task might have to be attacked. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, adequately identified the problems that occur.
	The global market brings food items into the United Kingdom in large amounts, from all over the world. It is said that up to 80 per cent of organic produce is imported. In many cases, the provenance of such food is unclear. One wonders whether the same production standards apply in the countries of origin as apply in this country. It is all very well seeing an attractively packaged item on the supermarket shelf presented in a polythene cover but one wonders whether the food under the cover was cleaned up with contaminated water—as indicated by my noble friend Lord McColl—or whether antibiotic sprays were used to prevent fungal or bacterial blemishes on soft fruit?
	In particular, our biosecurity at all levels with respect to food and food products is not strong. In fact, it is positively, alarmingly weak. It is still possible, for example, for potentially dangerous food and foodstuffs to be imported into this country without any checks whatever on passengers coming by air or sea. There are no warning signs for travellers coming into this country about the importation of meat and meat products as there are, for example, in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
	In New Zealand, sniffer dogs are employed to sniff out passengers who are carrying meat or meat products because of its great concern about the importation of meat, both for the control of animal disease and human disease. We could well emulate what the New Zealanders do in this respect because there are people who are training dogs to sniff out meat and meat products.
	It may well be that the recent outbreaks of classical swine fever and foot-and-mouth disease were due to imported meat and meat products getting into the food chain and eventually being disposed of by being fed to pigs.
	However, an even greater concern arises from the illegal importation of what is known as "bush meat". This is a very serious concern which must be addressed without delay. Bush meat is derived from gorillas, chimpanzees and other primates. It is imported into Europe and this country as meat used for celebration purposes. Not only is it against CITES—the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species—but it is at times contaminated by important and highly infectious agents, in particular with the Ebola virus, which is one of the most virulent viral diseases of man. Its introduction into a susceptible population in this country would be devastating.
	A recent article in a newspaper in Cairo carried the headline,
	"Monkey brains off the menu in Central Africa",
	because the Ebola virus had killed about 30 people after they had feasted on monkeys.
	Other potential pathogens include HIV—which it is thought originated in monkeys—and monkeypox. Although monkeypox in humans can be prevented by smallpox vaccination, we have not vaccinated humans for more than a generation. Were monkeypox to be imported in a food product, it would lead to major problems for people in this country.
	A recent survey at Heathrow indicated that 5.5 tonnes of imported bush meat came into this country over a period of several months, and it is sold in shops in western Europe. This is one area which, despite what I have said previously, needs a rigorous application of controls. Rigid attention should be paid to the safety of the food coming into this nation.

Lord Chan: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for introducing the debate and some very important issues that influence health. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich on his thoughtful maiden speech.
	Good health is a priority concern for most people. Good health is based on eating a balanced diet of wholesome food available close to home. My concern is for children and their opportunities to eat wholesome food in order to avoid diet-related illness as adults. I declare an interest as a retired paediatrician.
	Wholesome food is very unlikely to be the product of processing, and processed food is seldom wholesome. We are told that organically grown and organically produced food is preferable to food grown with chemical fertilisers.
	Diet-related disease, defined as health problems due to the composition of the diet, is a major contributor to premature death and disability. It includes coronary heart disease, high blood pressure, stroke, diabetes, cancer, osteoporosis or thin and brittle bones associated with old age, dental caries, which in this country is common among Chinese and Vietnamese pre-school children, and iron deficiency anaemia, which is becoming more common in pre-school children from poor families.
	The United Kingdom has a poor record among affluent countries for diet-related deaths. For example, our women have five times the death rate from coronary heart disease compared with women in France. Our men have three times more deaths from coronary heart disease than men in France, and five times that of Japanese men.
	Our dismal record of diet-related disease could be significantly improved if we encouraged all Britons to eat more fruit and vegetables. Strong evidence exists for the protective effect of fruit and vegetables against coronary heart disease and cancer. The World Health Organisation in 1990 recommended that people eat at least 400 grams, or approximately five portions, of fruit and vegetables a day. This advice, if implemented, could reduce overall deaths from heart disease, stroke and cancer by up to 20 per cent.
	The deficit of fruit and vegetable consumption in the United Kingdom is considerable. According to the target set for the consumption of fruit and vegetables by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy—surprisingly called COMA—now replaced by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, on current trends it will take another 45 years before our overall population target is met. This target is for each adult to consume 3,500 grams of fruit and vegetables per week.
	Clearly the implementation of policies for good health into practice in families and individuals is neither simple nor easy. The Department of Health first recommended five portions of fruit to be eaten by everyone in 1997. I praised this recommendation in my plenary paper on good food policy during a United Kingdom/United States of America conference in 1997 on cardio-vascular health for black and ethnic minority people. The NHS Plan 2000 also recommended five portions of fruit each day, starting with children.
	The following steps would help promote good health through healthy eating. First, fresh fruit and vegetables need to be locally available at affordable prices. Therefore, more people should be encouraged to grow fruit and vegetables for sale locally. Allotments and gardens would be ideal places for this enterprise.
	Secondly, in order to encourage young children to eat vegetables, a greater variety should be grown. Examples of vegetables that can be grown here successfully in spring and summer are spinach, water cress, Chinese leaves, pak choi and bean sprouts. Bean sprouts grow in the dark.
	Thirdly, healthy cooking methods need to be taught in schools. One example is stir-fried vegetables. Cooked in two or three minutes, they are green, crisp and tasty. This method is the opposite of deep frying in fat.
	Fourthly, steps must be taken to reverse the increasing trend of eating unhealthy convenience foods such as potato crisps with large amounts of added salt, which raises blood pressure, and meat burgers and fried chicken with a high animal fat content. In the past decade, spending on convenience foods in the United Kingdom has increased by 66 per cent, to £9 billion. A significant step towards reducing this unhealthy trend would be to stop schools allowing convenience food manufacturers to promote their products among schoolchildren. I look forward to the Minister's reply on how the Government will implement food policies which promote good nutrition and health.

Lord Taverne: My Lords, I join other speakers in congratulating the right reverend Prelate on his excellent maiden speech. He made an important contribution to the debate.
	My primary interest is in science and the need for policy to be based on evidence. There is a fashionable tendency in many quarters to turn against science and back to nature in a mushy, mystical sort of way. This movement is particularly evidenced in relation to food.
	First, perhaps I may offer some facts about food to put matters into perspective. Several speakers have referred to the importance of diet. As Sir John Krebs, the excellent and admirable chairman of the Food Standards Agency pointed out recently in Nature, not eating enough fresh fruit and vegetables probably causes about 100,000 deaths a year in Britain from cancer and heart disease. Food poisoning—which is what the press is most worked up about and which, therefore, the public are most scared of—accounts for perhaps 50 to 300 deaths. Growth hormones, which are banned in Europe, pesticides—about which there is a lot of fuss—and GM food, to all of which quite a lot of space is devoted in the commission's report, Farming & Food, are not responsible for any deaths. Again, I am citing Sir John Krebs.
	The report on farming and food, much of which is admirable, is somewhat prone to follow fashion. For example it calls for extra rigorous peer review of GM research. Of course, all research should be subject to peer review. But why, significantly, single out GM and treat it so suspiciously? Is it by any chance because the commission included the chair of the Soil Association and the chair of the National Consumer Council? They are dedicated opponents of GM. Their opposition is based on ideology, and they will not allow evidence to disturb their preconceived opinions.
	GM food is safer than conventional food because it has been far more rigorously tested. If subjected to the same tests, potatoes, grilled food and peanuts would be banned for a start. The scares about GM food were rejected by the Royal Society, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and by a committee of this House. Hundreds of millions of Americans have been eating GM products for five to 10 years without any deaths and even without a single law case. If no one in America finds grounds to sue, there must be something right.
	Again, let us look at pesticides. A Guardian article recently did its best to scare people about synthetic pesticides by claiming that one in every three mouthfuls we eat contains poison. It was written by a prominent member of the Soil Association. Actually, just about every mouthful contains some poison. The water we drink contains poison. It all depends on the dose. Too much of almost anything will kill you. In fact, the amount of pesticide residue in the food we buy in the shops is very effectively controlled and is a minute proportion of the level which might be considered dangerous.
	If we are really worried about ingesting poison, no one should ever drink coffee. If I may quote Sir John Krebs again, a single cup of coffee contains natural carcinogens equal to a year's worth of synthetic carcinogens in the diet.
	I turn to organic farming, about which I have spoken previously. The commission recommends that we should spend more money on organic farming. To support organic farming is the apogee of political correctness and current fashion.
	The commission states that there is evidence that organic farming is good for biodiversity. I should like to see what this evidence is. No such evidence was produced before the Select Committee of this House. Of course, many people take up organic farming because, admirably, they want to farm in an environmentally friendly way. If that is what people set out to do, it is not surprising that they succeed. But they do not have to go organic.
	The Agricultural Research Institute testified to this House that integrated farming using conventional methods can have equally good environmental effects. The Game Conservancy Trust testified that the ecological case for organic farming had not been made out. It favours mixed farming systems, which are just as good for the environment, but at less cost and inconvenience.
	The only thorough comparative study, carried out in Essex, shows that integrated crop management has better results for biodiversity, at much lower cost and using less energy. That is what the Government should support. The claims for organic farming have not been accepted by the Food Standards Agency, claims by the Soil Association have been rejected by the Advertising Standards Authority—which made it withdraw its recruiting leaflets—and its most recent claims were taken comprehensively apart in the January edition of Prospect by an eminent Fellow of the Royal Society.
	Organic farming is based on the proposition that natural pesticides are good and synthetic ones are bad. It is "back to nature". In the days when our food was as natural as any organic farmer could possibly wish, people died like flies. It is voodoo science. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was quite right about the false distinction between natural and synthetic chemicals.
	But what is perverse about giving public money to support organic farming is that its relative inefficiency means that organic produce costs more. Well, says the commission, it is worth paying more for quality. Leaving aside the fact that claims for better quality have not been substantiated, if the middle classes want to pay more for food, that is their concern. Incidentally, there is some evidence that demand for organic produce may have peaked. If so, the new organic farmers may find, as has happened with milk, that the price goes down and they produce at a loss. But what really matters is that those who are less well off—about whom my noble friend Lady Walmsley spoke—and who are, incidentally, less vocal and less influential, will suffer. They will buy fewer vegetables and less fruit.
	There is a fundamental contradiction in part of the commission's report. It says that we must pay more for food. Yet it stresses how important it is to change the eating habits of those on lower incomes. Far the most important factor for them is price. Then, following fashion and political correctness, the commission proposes to support the wrong kind of so-called green farming, which will put prices up. That means that more people will die. It is a triumph of unreason.

Lord Plumb: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, reminds me of the motto of the Royal Agricultural Society of England: "Practice with Science". We have just heard a formidable statement on the science relating to food. I shall attempt to add a little practice—which I do with my farming interests.
	First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for providing this opportunity. It is appropriate that we debate food, particularly production and standards, and nutrition on the day after the publication of the Curry report and that the debate should concentrate on aspects of it.
	The policy commission, under the chairmanship of Sir Don Curry, is to be congratulated on its work; and the scribes of the report should be congratulated on producing such a well-written document. The right reverend Prelate rightly said—in a maiden speech that we all enjoyed—that such a report makes us think again. It gives us an opportunity to reflect on some of the remarks that are made.
	In today's world one has to be an optimist to be a farmer and a food producer. That is true whether one farms in the traditional sense, as we have been hearing about, whether one farms in a less intensive way, or whether one believes that there is a better future in a niche market by growing food organically or taking advantage of farmers' markets, as many are already doing.
	One has to be a super-optimist to believe that the vision that is clearly set out in the report will turn into reality. The report states that good land management is now the core business. Is that new? Five generations of the Plumb family have operated on that basis; good husbandry is the basis of farming. Vision suggests that the industry is a good place to work for existing participants, a place where new entrants can build a career and that farming, which is valued by the wider public, has a real sense of purpose again.
	That is a starry-eyed vision, but it is not in sight of reality. Nor is it reality to deliver in entirety the proposals for change, which are not new. Many of them, as Ministers know, have been on the books for the past two years and more, such as the proposals to reduce subsidies and replace them with a form of income-type support.
	The report states that consumers have confidence in English food, that the market is diverse and that consumers in all income groups have access to a healthy and nutritious diet. It says that consumers can exercise choice through better labelling on all products and that they are health conscious and take a keen interest in what they eat. They know where their food comes from and how it was produced. Well, I wonder. If we were to ask the consumers walking around outside the House where their breakfast, lunch or the food that they eat regularly comes from, I wonder how many would know.
	I shall relate a story that happened only a short while ago. There was a lady in my dentist's waiting room when I arrived at 8.30 one morning. She was reading her morning newspaper, the front page of which said that genetically modified food could cause meningitis and it referred to Frankenstein food. She turned to me and asked, "What do you think of all this". Being the politician that I am, I said, "More importantly, Madam, what do you think". She immediately said, "None of us in our home would touch it". When I asked what her family ate, she said, "We only eat organic food. It is safe. I know who you are, and now I shall probably offend you because we do not have cows' milk in our home. We only have organically-produced soya milk". I said, "That's very interesting, Madam. Where does it come from?" "It's British", she said. I said, "You say that you know who I am, so please accept that we do not grow soya in Britain. It has to be imported. May I remind you that 112 million acres of land are currently planted with genetically modified seed, which is three times larger than the total area from which we produce food in the United Kingdom? Therefore, your soya milk must come from America, and if I may say so, you look jolly well on it". When I eventually sat on the dentist's chair, he was critical of the fact that the lady had upset him by criticising me throughout the operation.
	I occasionally enjoy going to supermarkets to watch consumers' interests. My conclusion, like that of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, is that price is a major consideration. At the Meat and Livestock Commission conference yesterday, we were told by the chairman of Safeway's that 35 per cent of people buy food for pleasure; 12 per cent for health; and 32 per cent for convenience. Convenience will emerge as the growth sector. Food has to be ready-prepared; ready to heat; and ready to eat. He referred to the growing importance of and concern about imports, which is a major subject on its own. The Minister sent me a letter in answer to a question that I asked during our debate on the Animal Health Bill about the import of products from countries where foot and mouth disease exists or is endemic. Those countries include Botswana, Brazil, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland and Zimbabwe. During the period from October 2000 to September 2001, 108,339 tonnes of meat were imported from those countries where the disease exists.
	The vision could fade into oblivion if we continue to risk importing suspect products. I am by no means anti-import; naturally, I am very pro-export if we could have parity between the pound sterling and the euro. I hope that the Minister will press for fair play on the methods of production, especially from those importing countries and on quality assurance. Recent figures suggest that we are consuming £2.4 billion-worth of junk food in this country, which is 50 sizzlers a second, if we put it in those terms. That is more than France, Italy and Denmark put together.
	We must develop a positive strategy for food and farming based on high standards. We need an integrated and transparent food chain, with farmers collaborating more to improve their position in the marketplace. New crop products must be developed in both the food and the non-food sectors.
	The disappointment of yesterday's report is that through the modulation proposals, together with problems such as the nitrate Bill and other unnecessary measures, we shall be robbing Peter to pay Paul when the key objective should be to return British agriculture and rural businesses to profitability.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, first, like many of your Lordships, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich on his excellent maiden speech. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, told us something about his life and ministry, but I assure your Lordships that he comes of pedigree stock. His father was archdeacon in the diocese of Hereford and he himself was successively agricultural chaplain and archdeacon in the diocese of Hereford, Like any winner, I am sure that he will not mind my saying that he has been well bred and well trained. We look forward to his further speeches on rural affairs, and I very much welcome his companionship on these Benches.
	The debate has led to a remarkable variety of speeches—on farming, nutrition, food science, food poverty, and, indeed, on the peril of eating anything at all. I am immensely relieved that this lunchtime I chose apple pie instead of the attractive-looking fruit salad, which included a surprisingly large proportion of raspberries. I am glad to say that monkey brain was not on the menu. I cannot help wondering how the friend of the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, was able to speak while the dentist was operating on her.
	I want to speak briefly on food production. Once upon a time there was a rural White Paper which said, among other things if one persevered to chapter 8, that farming was important, it supplied most of our food and that it would continue to be the bedrock of the UK food chain. Once upon a time seems the right way to put it, as that is the language of fairy tales and make-believe. For a long time that is what it seemed to be. We looked in vain for signs of real hope that flesh would be put on the skeletal bones of that praise-worthy principle that farming would continue to be the bedrock of the UK food chain.
	Farming was already in crisis—deep crisis—when the rural White Paper appeared. Although some small crumbs of comfort were tossed to the farming community from time to time, the decline continued, sharply accentuated by classical swine fever and by foot and mouth. We desperately needed the fairy story to become reality. Like other noble Lords, I warmly welcome this debate, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for introducing it—especially for the inclusion of the words, "proactive" and "sustainable", in a debate about food production policy.
	There is a wonderful opportunity now for such a policy to be articulated and implemented. I strongly agree with the thrust of the recommendations of the excellent Curry report, especially its emphasis on re-connecting farming with the economy, the environment, and the market. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give indications that the Government do indeed intend to embrace the commission's recipe for proactive and sustainable food production.
	Recent signs have been very uncertain, with distinctly mixed messages coming from DEFRA and from Ministers. An encouraging sign has been the new responsiveness to anxieties over GM crops, and the possible contamination of organic produce. It is good to hear of further analysis of test results, and more open public debate. GM crops could play a significant part in a UK food production programme and even be nutritionally beneficial. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, in that respect. However, there are many questions that remain to be answered, and many critics whose anxieties need to be addressed. It is also good to know that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, recently indicated the likelihood of government support for a forum, or institute, to foster much better co-operation in the food chain—to shorten it, and to bring farmers much closer, as they need to be, to their markets.
	But there have also been many disappointments: the refusal of the Government even to attempt an aspirational target for the percentage of food that should be produced in the UK—the enormous proportion of food imported has already been mentioned in the debate—despite an obsessive concern with targets for schools and for NHS waiting-lists. Since 11th September, I believe that food security has, once again, become a real issue in a way that it has not been for a long time. Yet, we have had no recognition of that fact. There is no government commitment to UK agriculture, or any indication of the proportion of food that the Government would like to see produced in this country. Nor have we, until now, had any sign of targeted support for organic farming; indeed, not for the dairy industry, even though organic dairy produce is already meeting market demands.
	The Prince of Wales said to me this morning, "I can't get organic meat. I just can't get enough of it". There is still scope for more organic beef production and, above all, for much more organic fruit and vegetable production. Far too much food is still imported. I do not support organic food because it is nutritionally or environmentally better; I support it because of the available market that is not being met. Intelligent farmers ought to be meeting the market, and making some money out of it. I regret the recent decision on dubious financial grounds not to continue support for the UK-wide protected zone status for rhizomania, which puts at risk profitable sugar beet production—one of our few profitable crops. Although it has already been mentioned, perhaps I shall dare to mention again the hideous, ludicrously inadequate policy of placing a few notices at airports as if they will deter the people who bring in potentially dangerous, diseased meat. We must have more safeguards.
	There is real encouragement in the Curry report for the greening of farming. I warmly support increased modulation—I bow to the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, because I know that he does not like it; but I think that it is right—provided that the money stays on the farm. I also support paying the farmer to deliver biodiversity and landscape benefits, which are urgently needed after 30 years of intensive farming, instead of having food surpluses that depress prices. So I wish to give a resounding yes to the Curry proposals for increasing environmental sustainability. But economic sustainability is far from being achieved. It must remain doubtful whether Curry can actually deliver.
	The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is right: matters are still desperate. The environmental benefits can be achieved only if farmers can actually survive economically. The recent signs are not good: pig prices are down by another 2 pence a kilo, and milk prices are decreasing by nearly 2 pence a litre. Many producers are still abandoning the struggle. Indeed, more than 9,000 people left farming in the 12 months up to June of last year. The exodus continues. What about economic stability? That is not yet in sight.
	A major conference is due to take place in Cambridge next month, entitled, "Does Britain actually have a food production policy?" Environmental policies, yes; countryside policies, yes; and food importing policies, yes. But a food producing policy? The jury is still out on that question.

Lord Rea: My Lords, as chairman of the All Party Food and Health Forum, I am more qualified to talk about the plate, or the consumption that takes place in the end, rather than about the plough, or conception, that takes place at the beginning of the food chain.
	Chapter 5 of the very comprehensive Curry report mentions most of the important issues in the food and health debate (nearly all of which, incidentally, we have visited in the periodic meetings of the food and health forum). However, although the problems are mentioned, the means of solving them are only hinted at. I suggest that too much responsibility is given to the farming and food industries to achieve the suggested goals, and that too little help is suggested on the part of the Government. For instance, there are the excellent sounding suggestions in the report that,
	"industry should establish a group to look at how it can play its part in encouraging good nutrition",
	and that this group,
	"must examine food advertising and how to encourage responsible advertising . . . working closely with the British Nutrition Foundation",
	which, of course, is also funded by the food industry.
	Although industry must eventually be the means of delivering the goods that we, the public, need and, one hopes, demand—which is rather different—the track record of industry in initiating the changes that are required is, with a few notable exceptions, not very good. There is a need for both sticks and carrots from the Government side. An example of a carrot would be to help sway public demand, and hence the market, in the right direction, which industry would then surely follow. A further carrot might be to offer a small grant for planting fruit trees. After all, as I understand it, there used to be a grant for grubbing them out when the desirability of fruit for health was not so fully understood.
	However, a stick might be to introduce regulations on the advertising of certain products on television—yes, I am sorry, regulations are sometimes necessary. Voluntary agreements on advertising, if we take the example of the tobacco industry, are not very effective. An example might be to stop the advertising of delectable products rich in sugar and fat, or salt and fat, on television at the times when children are most likely to be watching. The problem is that that period often extends to midnight, which suggests that advertising of some products might have to be banned altogether. I am sure that many parents would welcome this, but perhaps a step-by-step policy would be more acceptable.
	At the risk of again trotting out a hobby-horse, I consider that although the report mentions the importance of good nutrition for health, the extent to which faulty nutrition contributes to our most prevalent chronic diseases is insufficiently emphasised. A parallel recent report, entitled, Why Health is the Key to the Future of Food and Farming, edited by Tim Lang and Geof Rayner, and supported by the Health Development Agency, gives some interesting statistics. It shows that the World Health Organisation, for example, has established that in developed market economies diet-related diseases—as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Chan, in much greater detail than my list—are responsible for 35 per cent of disability adjusted life years. That is quite a difficult concept; they are called DALY's, and they represent the sum of years of life lost in early death, together with years of life lost through disability. However, diarrhoeal diseases, including Salmonella, campylobacter, E. coli, and so on, are responsible for 0.2 per cent only of the DALY's lost, which reflects the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne.
	About one third of deaths and disabilities due to cardiovascular disease and cancer are attributable to poor diet. As those are two of the commonest causes of premature death and disability, it is possible to calculate that about 10 per cent of all death and disability is due to poor diet. That is 50 times the number of DALYs due to microbiological or chemical contamination of food, which tends to lead to brief disability, and only very rarely to death.
	At present, political and media interest is much more likely to be focused on food safety, especially if it is presented in wonderfully dramatic terms, as it was by the noble Lord, Lord McColl. Avoiding the contamination of food arouses much more interest than the less dramatic but far greater problem of reducing our burden of chronic serious disease due to faulty nutrition. It is interesting that during the passage of the legislation creating the Food Standards Agency, the Government declined to include "nutrition" in the statement of objectives of the FSA, despite strenuous efforts in both Houses. It is to the credit of Sir John Krebs and the board of the FSA that research into and the promotion of good nutrition nevertheless forms part of its activities. However, I was surprised to learn that nutrition accounts for only 5 per cent of its budget. The Department of Health also has a budget for the promotion of good nutrition, but, combined with local authorities' budgets, the total official expenditure on nutrition is a diminutive David compared with the Goliath of the food industry, whose budget for food advertising is almost £600 million.
	In a speech of this length, I can only chip at the edges of this complex issue, in which at least four departments of state are directly involved, with many others less directly. I should like the policy commission that produced the wide-ranging Curry report to be made permanent, or replaced by a more permanent commission that does not necessarily have the same personnel. Its proposals could then be fleshed out in more detail, with its co-ordinating role retained. A government policy could be developed from that. I am sure that the word "health" should be firmly incorporated in the title of any future policy on farming and food. For why do we grow, produce, buy, cook and eat food other than to enjoy and sustain our life and good health?
	The noble Lord, Lord McColl, referred to the supplementation of bread with folic acid in the United States. I know that the Government have been considering that for some time to help prevent neural tube defects (spina bifida). It has recently been shown that folic acid is one of the most important ingredients of good food—fruit and vegetables and nuts in particular—needed to prevent cardiovascular disease. It has been estimated that approximately 8 per cent of deaths from cardiovascular disease could be prevented by the supplementation of all flour with folic acid.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, while preparing for the debate I mentioned to one of my noble friends—who is not here tonight—the high propensity of shoppers to buy uniform, ready-prepared products, particularly out-of-season foods. I instanced the humble swede, which is in season now, but which I would not eat in the summer. Initially I was shocked by her reply that most people do not know whether swedes, parsnips or strawberries have a season—they cost more at particular times of the year, but otherwise they are available all year round. As a gardener, I was considerably shocked by that, but it made me think that many changes are necessary if we are to interest people in buying and eating locally produced food.
	First, I agree with my noble friend Lady Walmsley that we have to start with education on what is available, what is in season and the relative economics of the food chain. That includes information on how much the producer receives, how to prepare food and how to buy food so that wholesome feeding becomes the norm and we move away from the high-salt, high-cholesterol, high-fat diet to which we have become accustomed. What place does that have in our national curriculum? I want to be assured that political correctness—ideas that boys must not learn about cooking or girls should do physics—has not played a part in moving the agenda away from the home economics to which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred.
	We want to know a lot more about products so that we can be much more knowledgeable purchasers. Creating a knowledgeable, educated market demands attention from our schools, our newspapers and the television and demands a budget to explain the good case, as opposed to the large amount of money that is spent on promoting the less good case. I recently went to a school in Oxford that had sent the children out to buy sandwiches from various outlets. In a laboratory, they took the sandwiches apart and revealed to the children how much money they were laying out for what was essentially a convenience food and how they could get much more nourishment for a lot less money.
	We have to help the consumer gain access to the right food. Most food comes from supermarkets. We are right to promote alternatives such as farmers' markets, but first each supermarket should stock and display at least some healthy, and hopefully locally sourced, food, which must be honestly marketed. We have to arrive at a system under which food produced in Britain—not just packaged here—is marked clearly. The Government need to do something about that.
	I went into my local supermarket on Saturday and was given a choice of leeks. There were good English leeks in one corner, covered in mud, and there were Turkish leeks, which were neatly packaged and beautifully white. I do not know what process they had been through. I imagine that most people bought the Turkish leeks, not the English ones, because the English ones were not properly marketed by either the supermarket or whoever had produced them in the first place.
	We should help to increase the number of farmers' markets and small shops through better organisation. Reference has been made to the increase in the number of farmers' markets, but in most places they occur only once a month. Any producer has to know that a regular, substantial market is available for his produce. If it is not there all the time, he will not produce for it. We should also remember the advantage that accrues to other shops from having a good healthy market in a town. Winchester has 30 per cent more business in its other shops on days when it has a farmers' market. If such markets are well organised, they bring people into the town, but they are a minority occupation and do not happen very often.
	I am asking for real education in schools, on television and in newspapers and I am asking for pressure to be put on supermarkets to display their products and market them honestly.
	Finally, I should like more effort to go into farmers' markets and small shops and into proper co-operatives such as exist in France, where people band together to market their produce. The Government move in a curious way to bring about such developments. We have allowed larger lorries on our roads, mostly at the behest of people who move food such as grain or potatoes in large quantities. Depots are then closed, because the bigger lorries go further and the food travels further with them. We do not take any account of the cost, and nor do we factor in the fact that the lorries do not pay their proper costs in the first place.
	We are being called on now to allow much greater airport access. The call is made in the guise of defeating foreign competition, but in fact greater access would mean that more food from further afield will be brought in. It will continue to feed our whole objectionable chain.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on achieving this debate. I am not sure whether he regards it as his good fortune or bad fortune that it has fallen on the day after Sir Don Curry's report on the future of food and farming. I am afraid that, inevitably, some of us find that focus slightly hard to avoid.
	To answer satisfactorily the theme that the noble Lord has given us is bound to be a major challenge. We live in an age of incredible change from the century that went before. The nature of production has changed, the nature of communication has changed, the nature of science and medicine has changed, and even the nature of war has changed, as we were reminded not so very long ago. But it is still the prime responsibility of government to provide for the food, health and security of their population. Today, we are being asked to identify the criteria that should be used to achieve that responsibility in the future. We all know when it is not being achieved in the present.
	As I have said before, I have been immersed in the farming industry for most of my life, and I still am. Sir Don Curry's report talks about farming becoming connected to the market and also about the removal of all production subsidies. In his recent study, A policy for agriculture, Sir Richard Packer has as his guiding principle,
	"prices should be allowed to find their own level according to supply and demand".
	Such a proposition, of course, is built on the premise that, with the world's modern communications, we will know when there is a drought in the United States, a surplus in South America or a flood in India. We also expect to be able to ship boatloads of the requisite commodity freely across the oceans to wherever it is needed and we can find someone to pay for it. However, rather as the Government need to decide the correct strength for our Armed Forces, in view of our current alliances and joint commitments, and rather like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford was saying, I believe that the Government should have a similar approach to food. The Government need to know the minimum level of home-based food production that should be maintained to ensure security in the event that there is a problem attaining it or, in a case of severe shortage, paying for it.
	One aspect of that issue is the question of whether we regard the European Union as our base unit simply because it is the level at which major policy decisions are taken, or whether we would be prepared to examine our national production levels in terms of self-sufficiency. Yesterday, we heard the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, say that he was worried that he might have to introduce a Stalinist plan specifying that 79.3 per cent of our production should be for home consumption. I merely contend that the Government should have some idea of how far they are prepared to go with a structure that encourages cheap imports against home production.
	Office for National Statistics figures for 2000 show that the total value of UK agricultural production is £15,000 million. However, to satisfy our market, we currently require imports of additional food to the value of £17,000 million. As my noble friend Lord Plumb was hinting, there is some compensation in that we export in turn more than £8,000 million of our best quality product. Considering the strength of the pound against the euro, I wonder whether there is a lesson there for us. People in those markets are prepared to pay more than we do for food, and they are not embarrassed about it. Those exports are the price leader for our home market.
	Most of Europe is having to cope with an entirely new currency. We in this country have had recently to accept only one innovation—the £2 coin. Your Lordships are undoubtedly aware that some thoughtful person has inscribed around the edge of that coin the sobering quotation from Sir Isaac Newton,
	"standing on the shoulders of giants".
	Anyone involved in farming and food production with the least sense of history realises that we are standing on the shoulders of giants. The countryside has been nurtured and shaped to facilitate food production and what we know as rural life. The Curry report is asking us to adopt an entirely new emphasis. In much of the country, one is conscious of the gigantic infrastructure that has been built up: men with horses have cleared boulders, piled stones and built walls; men with picks and shovels have built ditches to bring water to the land; and men have dug great trenches over the whole landscape for drainage to take the water away. Any policy that is based on providing environmental benefits such as has been suggested in the report will have to be robust enough to ensure that much of that infrastructure is retained, especially if a policy of environmentally friendly or organic production is to be adopted. Much of that work is a capital asset that does not appear on any balance sheet, and recently the Government have put a great deal of money into it. It would be foolish to let it go to waste without heed.
	The Curry report is definitely blue-skies thinking. It is full of some new schemes, some old schemes, and numerous new quangos. Press reports seem to suggest that implementing the report would cost £500 million over three years. I noticed that Ben Gill of the National Farmers Union says that it will cost farmers £138 million. Perhaps he is simply quantifying the increase in modulation from 4.5 per cent to 10 per cent, as suggested in the report, although I do not have the facts to back that up. However, as most of that presumably will come under the second pillar of EU support, and if the Government can persuade Brussels to increase our allocation sufficiently, will the direct cost to the UK Government be only £250 million?
	Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, I should also like to ask the Minister whether the Government are prepared to undertake a scheme of that nature, if that is the type of financial commitment that is required. As those involved in agriculture and food production seem on the face of it to be threatened with that type of penalty, they would clearly like to know a great deal more about how the payments for environmental benefit might be structured. Their experience with the current, competitive system has not been a happy one. I also noticed that the Government would like to obtain greater flexibility in how modulated funds are used. That gives rise to the question of how much of the money would be soaked up by consultative and advisory bodies and so on.
	Until we know the answers to those questions, the Curry report will be just another government publication that is likely to gather dust, along with the rural White Paper and others. If we are given some assurances today, the suggestions can be given serious consideration.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, what an interesting debate this is proving to be. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who—in the wake of the report of Sir Don Curry on food and farming—has selected a very appropriate day to introduce it.
	I declare several interests. I am the wife of a farmer and take an active part in caring for our livestock. I am a specialist cheese maker and chairman of Honest Food. Above all, I am interested in growing, preparing and eating food. I am also a regular partaker of the "healthy option" in the Bishops Bar in the House of Lords. All the produce from our farm is sold either from our small shop or at farmers' markets.
	I must make the point that it is not government policy that produces food; it is by the individual and corporate efforts of people that we are fed. I have looked for a definition of "sustainable government policy" on various department websites. None is available. I suspect that that may be because there is no such thing. Governments change, Ministers change, and their policies seem to change with them. There is not much sustainable about that. I did find an old MAFF definition for "sustainable agriculture". The definition was written in February 2000. Only part of it applies to this debate, and I shall not quote it here.
	We need a diversity of food production for our countryside if our countryside is to flourish and the now accepted consumer demand for wide choice is to be satisfied. We have the capability of producing the very best meat and dairy products in the world. Our land and climate are ideally suited for this type of production. Consumers, when asked, say they prefer to buy British produce in order to support British farmers. They rightly ask that the food be produced to the highest quality and welfare standards. Our farmers play their part. What happens? When it comes to the crunch, the vast majority of consumers buy on price.
	To most of the British eating is merely a means of refuelling. Unlike our continental cousins who treat a meal as a pleasurable social occasion, we tend to shovel down the most convenient foods available, more frequently on the hoof than round the family dining table, and with little regard for their gourmet qualities and less for their nutritional content.
	The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is so right about education. I was brought up knowing the mineral and vitamin contents of most foods and I was taught how to cook them, and much do I appreciate that later in my life.
	The supermarket buyers have squeezed our producers on price until they squeak. Last week I talked to a group of dairy farmers. Not one of their sons wants to follow them into farming and, with the latest cuts in their milk cheques, they will all give up dairy farming this summer. Do I really need to ask where our milk will eventually come from if we go on like this? The climate is the same in all livestock and horticultural businesses. Farmers and growers have struggled for years to make a living. They love the land and they love the life. Many have now thrown in the towel and I fear that many more will do so in the very near future. They, too, are consumers and they, too, have to eat.
	In order to preserve a variety of food production and to maintain rural livelihoods, food production in some form must be at the heart of the countryside. As well as large businesses, small and medium-sized farming and associated enterprises must be encouraged to remain. They do not need special deals from the Government. There is a market for their produce, and survive they would if the Government and consumer organisations did not regard them as people who have to be regulated within an inch of their existence. It is important that Ministers and enforcement officers recognise that regulation should be there to help producers, not make their lives difficult. Regulators, producers and consumers all have the same objective: a varied, safe and high quality food production emanating from a clean, safe and attractive environment. Producers and consumers agree on this. I sometimes wonder about the regulators who, after all, carry all the power.
	We are asked to call attention to food standards. Farmers and producers have been conned into joining the "little red tractor" scheme on the understanding that produce bearing the logo will be British. Did no one tell Sir Don Curry and his colleagues, who have given such a strong plug to this vehicle in yesterday's report, that the little tractor does nothing of the sort? It can denote only that the goods have been produced to British farm standards. It could be French cheese, Argentinian beef or New Zealand lamb. I agree with Sir Don that there should be some way of demonstrating to the consumer who buys from a supermarket that the produce is British. However, he and we somehow have to overcome the strictures imposed upon us by the European Union and the World Trade Organisation. We are not allowed to trade unfairly, and to state that a product is produced to British standards is said to be unfair.
	The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also wishes us to draw attention to nutrition. We are discussing the food chain. The nutritional quality of our food depends upon the quality of the soil upon which crops are grown. These are the crops on which we and our meat animals feed. It has always puzzled me that farmers and vets fairly quickly recognise deficiencies in copper, selenium, magnesium, boron and other trace elements in crops and animals. If the animals suffer deficiencies, surely we must too. The Finns have placed selenium compulsorily in their fertilisers for many years. If the soil is right, we shall be right. Will the Minister arrange for some research to be conducted into the whole of the food chain from the nutrition in the soil right the way through to the vitamins and minerals in which adult humans are deficient?
	We are also getting mixed messages about food. I have just heard the noble Lord, Lord Chan, talk about dreadful animal fats and how they must be reduced. Yet on the radio—I believe that it was last Sunday—I heard how good animal fats are and how bad for us are all these polyunsaturates and God knows what. So please can we have some straightforward messages?
	Of course, we must recognise that food policy, food production, food standards and health and safety are all now governed by EU legislation. This will be a strange message coming from me. We may complain about this but, as has been observed on many occasions, our Government apply this legislation most stringently. What is true is that the UK Government policy can operate only within the strictures ordained by Brussels. All our discussions of what is and is not government policy must take into account political reality. I should, therefore, like to ask the Minister to tell us how the Government see EU policy developing and how the Government interpret that policy. Do we have any leeway? Do they fight the British corner as strongly as we hear that our partners fight for their countries?

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is becoming increasingly fashionable, sadly, to "knock" farming. We have a government who do not understand the countryside. Indeed, yesterday, the Prime Minister in welcoming the Curry report said with regard to agriculture that the present situation benefits no one. That is a sad reflection on many good farmers who farm in a sustainable way and have moved a long way from the condemned position in which they have been put.
	People are apologising for farmers now. I am reminded of the words of that great poet, Robert Burns. It is appropriate to quote him today as we are only about three or four days past his anniversary. I hope that the Minister celebrated that anniversary in true style on Friday night. Burns wrote:
	"I'm truly sorry Man's dominion
	Has broken Nature's social union". That phrase seems to be incorporated in part in the Curry report. I do not apologise for farmers in any way at all. It is also stated in the Curry report that farming ought to reflect what the public want. That is exactly what farming has been doing for the past 50 years. Sadly, farmers are now in the position of being condemned for that.
	There are other things wrong with the Curry report. Sadly, one of the effects of devolution is that the report refers only to England. Surely in this small country of ours we cannot just have a little regional report. If we are to have little regional reports on matters as important as health, farming and hygiene, I hope to goodness that the Government are talking about them to the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish.
	However, the matter is more important than that. I pick up the theme mentioned by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. England is a bit player—in itself the UK is a bit player—within the European Union. All the grandiose ideas as regards where farming in this country can go are absolutely irrelevant if we do not change the CAP. Nothing in the Curry report gives any indication of what we should do if his ideals are not realised and if we do not get what we want in Europe. That conundrum has faced governments for many years. The Curry report is one of those well intentioned reports that governments bring out from time to time—indeed, I was a member of a government who brought out a number of reports on agriculture—which gather dust. Some lie in deeper layers of dust than others. We really cannot move until Europe, and in particular the US, change their farming practices. We are a pawn on the board that gets moved around very much at their will.
	I also fear that the Curry report will perpetuate an increasing trend of raising standards to incredibly high and, perhaps it might be argued, good levels in this country while not in other countries. That will continue to put our farmers at a disadvantage. Here I pick up a theme mentioned by my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior on the question of imports. It is hopeless to try to raise standards in this country, to set ourselves targets that other countries do not meet but nevertheless to import their food—and not just their food, but their polluted food. My noble friend Lord Plumb referred to meat coming in from countries where there is foot and mouth disease. When will the Government get to grips with that particular item? I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is present. He will remember the debate we had the other day when many of us mentioned that point.
	There is a good proactive recommendation in the Curry report about establishing a permanent food chain centre. That is good, provided that one gets rid of all the other little quangos that are trying to do much the same job. We should not simply put another quango and more bureaucracy into the system. If one is going to follow that recommendation—it is a good idea, which many of us would support—we should get rid of all the other garbage that is currently around.
	I turn briefly to a subject that has not yet been mentioned; that is, fish farming. The demand for fish has increased enormously throughout the world and fish farming is the fastest-growing sector in the food production chain. What are the Government's thoughts on that? Are they concerned about the stocking densities of fish farms in Scotland in particular and of trout farms in England and Norway? Are they concerned about the level of disease and about escaped fish, which are affecting our wild stocks?
	We have been encouraged to buy and consume more fish but we do not really know where the fish comes from, what it has been raised on or what it is. I gather that due to fish farming, the level of fat in fish has increased enormously. We may think that we are buying something good but we might be buying something bad. I support what my noble friend Lord Plumb said: we do not know what we are eating. I also support many of the comments made about labelling and education with regard to food.
	We are well over our allotted budgeted time, so I shall not make the other points that I had prepared. I hope that the Government will not rush ahead too quickly with the Curry report.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, our debate this afternoon has lived up to everything that we on these Benches had hoped for in terms of its extent and the subjects raised. We have often debated food production and farming in your Lordships' House but always from the plough end—at least, that is true since I came to this House. This is the first debate for many years that encompasses the matter from the plate, as it were.
	The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, asked whether it was good or bad fortune to have this debate the day after the publication of the Curry report. We knew that that report would appear at the end of January, and the timing of this debate involved planned good fortune; we did not know that we would have this debate the day after the report's publication.
	I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich on his wonderful maiden speech. We are aware of the crises that agriculture has been through and, as he said, of the fact that crises cause us to think again. It was for that reason that we were anxious to have this debate.
	We appreciate the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, at this debate. We feel that too often health and food production have been disconnected. The theme of the Curry report was reconnection. We are glad that both Ministers are in their place.
	Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, whom I congratulate warmly on introducing this debate, referred to the place of food in history. First, there was too little food, then there was too little of the right food. Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Chan, and my noble friend Lady Walmsley, referred to diseases that are now re-appearing. They are re-appearing because we have too much of the wrong food. The effect of that is very similar to the effect of having too little of the right food.
	The UK National Diet and Nutritional Survey bears out many of the points that were made this afternoon, particularly those about children. Nearly all children—92 per cent of them—are eating far too much saturated fat, and 83 per cent eat far too much sugar.
	We have discussed cheap food and what "cheap" means. Per household, we spend less on food as a proportion of income. In 1963, we spent nearly 20 per cent of our income on food but today the figure is 9.7 per cent. We should compare that with the situation in other countries. Noble Lords mentioned France and the attitude to food there. We may have to be prepared to spend a higher proportion of our income on food and less on those items that supermarkets wish us to buy in addition to food. Some of the savings that we make in our spending on food are spent on items that we may regard as being less essential, such as flowers, for example, which are prominently displayed in supermarkets but which do not contribute much to our actual health—although they may contribute to our spiritual health.
	My noble friend Lady Walmsley said that our view of food was an attitude of mind—a cultural attitude. The French and Italians have managed to retain that to a much greater degree than we have. Food is central to their cultures. One can see the benefits of that in terms of tourism, for example. When we discuss tourism and the countryside—we have often done so—we return to the fact that food is a central issue in that regard. On the other hand, we have discussed the need for food to be cheap and for processed food to have its rightful place. We have not entirely resolved that debate this afternoon but we have had a good crack at some of the surrounding issues.
	I turn to the reconnection of food and schools, which many noble Lords have discussed. The food that is served in schools should be good and decent. The Government have taken some steps along those lines. As has been said, they introduced free fruit for four to six year-olds, which is a start. They have also introduced a "five-a-day" scheme for everyone, although it is being promoted in schools in particular; that, too, is a good thing.
	We have not addressed the fact that schools, particularly those in the secondary sector, have vending machines or the fact that increasing parts of the curriculum are sponsored by groups that are trying to promote foods that we should certainly not consider healthy. I refer to the usual examples: McDonald's, Walkers Crisps and Coca-Cola. If we accept that we do not want children to eat more of those foods, why do the names of those producers appear constantly in front of schoolchildren on teaching materials?
	On school meals, the Government brought in new nutritional guidelines in June 2000. They said at that time that when the new standards had settled down, they would undertake an evaluation of school meals using sample school surveys. I ask the Minister in particular whether there has been any monitoring since the new regulations came into force and, if so, when are the Government going to conduct their promised survey?
	As my noble friend Lord Bradshaw pointed out, schools can play a valuable part in enabling children to understand where food comes from and recognise the important issue of seasonality. Children need to appreciate where their food comes from in order to understand basic facts about it.
	Young adults are equally badly served at the moment. They do not have much money, they do not know how to cook and they often suffer difficult living conditions when they first move out of the home. They therefore resort to fast food and processed food for entirely understandable reasons. I tabled a Written Question, HL 1758, asking the Government whether they were,
	"content with the level of knowledge about food and nutrition gained at school by children up to the age of 16".
	The noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, replied:
	"Twenty-six per cent of pupils were entered for . . . (food) GCSEs".—[Official Report, 11/12/01; col. WA 190.]
	However, that is not the same thing because GCSEs cover very few practical aspects. Moreover, the figure means that 75 per cent of children still have no knowledge of that area.
	However, the answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was a little more encouraging. When I asked him a similar question, he said that the Government were considering launching a campaign to promote healthy eating among young adults. Perhaps I may strongly encourage him to do so and to pursue the matter with all vigour.
	I now turn to the issues raised by noble Lords in relation to food deserts, where there is a lack of local shops selling any type of food. In such areas, people have to travel much further to their local superstores. The distance travelled rose from 14 kilometres in 1986 to 22 kilometres in 1996. That is the last date for which I have a figure, but I suspect that since that date the distance has again increased greatly. That information relates to the distance travelled by humans simply in order to obtain food. It does not take account of "food miles"—a subject which I shall not go into but which has been referred to already.
	The issue of the number of "human miles" travelled to obtain food is serious. The people who already suffer from an unhealthy diet are those who also suffer from having to take a bus to obtain the food or are perhaps those who buy food which is much less fresh. It is certainly an important matter.
	At this point, I declare an interest as chairman of Somerset Food Link. I believe that the food link organisations throughout Britain do a very good job in highlighting such points. They map food deserts, encourage farmers' markets and produce lists of the places where people can buy good, wholesome food directly and, therefore, more cheaply. Those should all be encouraged. Perhaps the noble Lord will find out how many health authorities are joining in with that initiative. I am pleased to say that our health authority in Somerset has been most proactive. I hope that the primary care trusts will take a similar interest.
	Finally, I turn to the issue of the precautionary principle. Niall FitzGerald, chairman of Unilever, in a speech sponsored by Sainsbury's at the City Food Lecture, asked whether we would prefer the precautionary principle or a plate of fish and chips. Unilever, and I believe Sainsbury's, prefer the plate of fish and chips. It is the Government's job to prefer the precautionary principle. They must do so and they must enable others who are interested in it to do so, too.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, nothing that I have heard today has given me cause to question the depths of my concern on this issue. In the 10 minutes available to me, I want to share some thoughts with the House. As other noble Lords have said, we have heard wide-ranging contributions on subjects that include eating habits, especially the issues that influence the eating habits of children, and the eating habits that affect us in later life. We have heard about farmers' markets, diversity, conventional, organic and integrated farming, farming links within the community, the price which determines purchasing, bureaucracy at all levels, and labelling. Those are some of the issues to which I shall add.
	A matter that has not been touched on is food and tourism. Tourism plays an important part in our daily lives. I believe that there is great scope to link the food framework with the tourism sector in a manner that would benefit both.
	We all know, and have known ever since farming incomes went into free-fall, that the CAP must be refashioned, if not scrapped completely. We all know that bringing about a major change in the European institutions requires a lot of time and concerted action by all major players. We all know that reform of the CAP has not attracted uniform support from our European allies. We need a food policy that is workable within the CAP as it is and adaptable to the CAP as we should like it to be.
	For the past three years it has been obvious that the decline in agricultural incomes is more or less permanent. The decreasing share of the gross domestic product taken by agriculture is, in part, due to the fall in farm-gate prices. Before we can have a proactive and sustainable policy on food production, food standards and nutrition, I believe that a number of basic factors must be put right.
	As other noble Lords have said, food is an essential part of life. We must continue to produce it. Our farmers must receive a fair reward for their work. Milk prices at less than the minimum cost of production are not a fair reward. Process and welfare improvements further down the food chain costed back to the farmer are not a fair reward. Unfettered imports of goods produced in welfare and environmental circumstances forbidden here are not a fair reward.
	Having produced the food, we must ensure that the farmer has access to a market with which he is in touch. As things stand, food is transported, with very few rules, throughout the country to abattoirs and packers, to canning factories, freezer plants and distribution centres, and to ports, catering establishments and shops. The chain is long. Fruit and vegetables are produced to ripen early and are often sprayed in order to be kept green. They are sold in and out of season. In many cases, the link with the primary producer is non-existent.
	The distances travelled by livestock, meat and meat products, dairy products, beer, bread and vegetables must be shortened. The only way to achieve that is by requiring all food outlets above a certain size to provide a minimum space for locally produced foods. I am confident that if outlets were to take on that challenge, farmers would be able to supply them. I am aware that some of the more recent changes—for example, the closure of abattoirs—will have to be reversed. But I am sure that, if the market is assured, private funding will be available.
	Many noble Lords have spoken about the additional labelling rules which will be necessary. Indeed, it is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is responding to the debate. He will well remember that when the Food Standards Bill passed through this House, the one issue that I and the noble Countess, Lady Mar, kept to the fore was the need for food labelling to be put on to the face of the Bill. We are truly thankful that the Government eventually gave way. When consumers buy food, they must have correct guidance.
	It is possible that supermarkets and catering establishments will have to borrow for their food shelves and menus the system which is used, for example, in selling drinks, particularly wine. Why cannot we have in shops chill cabinets containing meat, eggs, bacon and sausages, for example, with a sign stating "English", "Welsh", "French", "South African", "South American"—

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, "Scottish"—

Baroness Byford: And "Scottish", my Lords, not forgetting, indeed, the many regions.
	A fourth basic element which I believe we need to examine is research into standards, nutritional values, pesticides and antibiotics. I warmly endorse the recommendations of the Curry report concerning the need to co-ordinate, focus and prioritise research within government and among the various industry bodies. Research affects every aspect of food production.
	At this point, let us remember our fishing industry, which my noble friend Lord Caithness mentioned. It is, indeed, an important aspect of food production and it is a growing sector. The fishing industry has a great responsibility both at sea and in relation to fish farming. However, it seems that there is a great deal of conflict between what happens in the depths and what happens to the fish that we stock and upon which we rely.
	The four basic elements to which I have referred are those without which no policy will work: fair rewards; access to local markets; full and unambiguous labelling; and focused research. I hope that noble Lords will agree that none of those needs to be hampered by the CAP as it stands at present, nor should they obstruct future reforms.
	I hope that the Minister agrees that the Government should accept responsibility for the implementation of their own policies. The farmer's job is to produce food; it is the Government's job to ensure that that food is up to standard, in constant and adequate supply, and available without unfair competition from other quarters.
	Today's debate has been interesting and informative. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for giving us a subject so fundamental to the well-being of the country. I particularly congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich—if I say to him that I was at Southwold this weekend, he will know that I was not far away—on an excellent maiden speech in which he twinned the importance of farming and the local community.
	I stress to the Minister and the Government the serious content of today's debate. As my noble friend, Lord Plumb, said, we need to make a vision—I believe that some of the recommendations of Sir Don Curry are a vision—into reality. The only way that that can happen is by the Government taking action. It is time to move forward and not to keep consulting. If we do not move forward, producers, and indeed consumers, will suffer in consequence. I end by quoting the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who we are pleased to see in support of the debate today. I was delighted when he said, in response to the Statement yesterday:
	"We shall not succeed as a food and farming industry unless profits can be made in the industry and unless the industry has a prosperous future".—[Official Report, 29/01/02; col. 121.]
	I totally agree.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, 16 minutes are left to me in this time-limited debate. I shall try to cover as many as possible of the points raised. If I do not cover some points, I shall follow them up and write to noble Lords.
	Like other noble Lords, I welcome the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in instituting what has been, on any count, an excellent debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, stated, it seems inevitable in your Lordships' House that debates about food have almost always focused attention on food production, land use issues and the undoubted pressures which farmers are under at present. It is useful to have had a much wider debate which takes into account the responsibilities of my department in relation to the Food Standards Agency and food and health policies more generally.
	We have also had drawn to our attention the impact of the difficulties of the farming industry on rural areas in general. I particularly commend the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich on an excellent and insightful maiden speech. We certainly look forward to his contributions in future.
	The Curry report, the commission's thinking about farming and the relationship of food to the consumer, goes very much to the heart of our debate. The commission speaks of a disconnection between supplier, processor and retailer, and in many cases of confrontational relationships and poor communications. Curry says that food is plentiful and sold at prices that are historically low. However, despite that, consumers are uneasy and are concerned about the wholesomeness and safety of the food they eat, and feel disconnected from what they eat and how it is produced.
	In addition to consumers' fears about food safety, Curry points to poor nutritional standards and says that we are storing up health problems, with people eating too much of the wrong food and not enough of the right food. That suggests to me the pressing need to ensure that an holistic approach is taken to food production, food standards and nutrition, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, pointed out. We need an approach that undoubtedly puts the consumer first; that ensures that food is safe to eat; that there is a choice of foods to allow an enjoyable and healthy diet; that food is of good quality; and, last but not least, that it is reasonably priced.
	I believe that the future of the food and farming industry must lie in ensuring that those expectations are met. As the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, that responsibility rests with industry, but government, too, have a major role to play in ensuring that the conditions are right for industry to play its part, just as government have a role to play in relation to food safety and nutrition.
	I believe that we have the right infrastructure in place. As my noble friend Lady Thornton said, we took action when we came into government to establish the Food Standards Agency to be an independent voice within government, able to give advice and publish it without first asking politicians. I believe that the agency has started its work well. Curry says some complimentary things about its performance. As my noble friend Lady Thornton said, it is setting new benchmarks for standards of openness and transparency in carrying out its role. In so doing, that will lead to greater confidence among consumers about food in this country. That confidence is one of the planks which will lead to better conditions for our farming industry generally.
	In terms of enforcement, the agency has developed a new framework agreement with local authorities to promote high and consistent standards of enforcement throughout the UK. That was one of the issues we debated when we established the Food Standards Agency. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, in a graphic speech, drew our attention to the dangers of fruit picking and urine coming together. He made some serious points about food-borne disease in this country. Certainly, the agency and the Government are exercised about the need to tackle that. The agency has a strategy which I believe has been well trailed. It is designed around promoting best practice, enforcement of legislation, publicity, training and education. But clearly, from what has been said in this debate, it is important that the agency gives all due attention to ensuring that that strategy is, indeed, implemented.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, all raised issues in relation to labelling. I certainly agree with the thrust of the points they made. We are a committed supporter of informed consumer choice. Because of that, we are pressing for amendments to EU labelling rules to require origin labelling on a wider range of foods, particularly meat and meat products; to require origin labelling for certain ingredients of food, particularly meat and dairy products, and to define and control the use of words such as "produce of". The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, made a telling point about her concern that at times consumers are unaware of where a product comes from.
	The issue of labelling also extends to nutrition labelling. My noble friend Lady Thornton quoted the experience of the Co-operative Retail Society, which is a good example. The Food Standards Agency is pressing for EU rules requiring compulsory nutrition labelling on all foods to help those who want to follow healthy eating advice.
	The issue of animal welfare is also important. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, speaks with great authority on those matters. I and the Government agree with the points he makes about reducing the distance travelled by animals to centralised slaughter plants. We believe that there is a serious animal welfare issue here and we very much support the thrust of what he said. He then raised the issue of the illegal importation of "bush meat", a subject which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford also discussed. We are actively taking forward a range of initiatives aimed at improving our ability to prevent and detect illegal imports of animal products. We are stepping up those checks. We are ensuring greater publicity at ports and airports, and information for travellers into the UK. Intelligence gathering has also been improved, together with ensuring better awareness of the problem on the part of Customs and local authority officers at ports and airports.
	The noble Lords, Lord Mackie and Lord Clement-Jones, raised the issue of pesticides. The Food Standards Agency believes that consumers should be able to purchase and consume with confidence foods produced with the use of pesticides. We do not object to the use of pesticides, as long as any residues are kept as low as practically possible, consistent with good practice, and do not pose a threat to health.
	I turn to nutrition. The link between nutrition and health is important. We have heard from a number of noble Lords about the connection between poor food habits and public health issues.
	We know that a person's diet is one of the greatest influences on their risk of developing cancer or heart disease. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, referred to that. The NHS Plan sets out the Department of Health's commitment for improving diet with action by 2004.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, had some very interesting suggestions to make in relation to encouraging people to make choices about what to eat. We cannot go back to the rationing which the noble Lord, Lord McColl, described so aptly. It must be done from a basis of ensuring that information is available and that, wherever people live, there is proper access to healthy food. I can point to many examples where initiatives are being taken to enable that to happen. For example, many of our health action zones have projects dedicated to improving access to healthier diets. These range from creating food delivery services in neighbourhoods where healthy food was not available to teaching cooking skills to young mothers.
	I have listened carefully to the points made about schools. It is significant that 25 per cent of pupils taking or studying the food technology GCSE are boys. It is not the only issue of course. But I know that my 13 year-old son was taught cooking last year at school and I have certainly enjoyed the benefits of that.
	A number of noble Lords have mentioned the efforts to encourage the "five-a-day" programme to increase the consumption of fruit and vegetables, and the National School Fruit Scheme. Recently, I announced the launching of that scheme in the West Midlands. The New Opportunities Fund has made £42 million available to support further phases of the pilot scheme from now until 2004. I am very keen on those schemes because they have the potential to increase demand for fruit and vegetables. I hope that the farming community in this country will be able to take on that challenge and increase the production of fruit in England to meet demand and that it will stem the current decline in vegetable production.
	So far as concerns obesity, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is absolutely right to point to the National Audit Office report. Healthy diets are clearly an important step in tackling obesity, although I would also argue that exercise, and particularly encouraging young people in schools to do sports, is equally important. Noble Lords may well know of the PE in School sports initiative, which again is using NOF money—£580 million over a series of years—to encourage that to happen.
	My noble friend Lord Rea asked how far we have got with folic acid fortification of flour. I can tell him that COMA recommended universal fortification of flour but did not go further to say that this should be on a mandatory basis. The Department of Health and the Foods Standards Agency have conducted public consultation which has confirmed differences of opinion among the public about the matter. The next stage is for the FSA board to consider those issues in the light of the consultation programme.
	The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to food poverty. I am very much aware of that, as is the Food Standards Agency. It is funding research, looking at the characteristics of so-called food deserts and assessing the local impact on dietary habits, which I hope will inform the development of policy. I visited the Sheffield health action zone which is already taking action in that area.
	In the first few minutes of my remarks I have focused rightly on the consumer. But of course the farming community faces many challenges and uncertainties. They have been very well described by a number of noble Lords today. That brings me to the farming production issues which were raised in the Curry report. It has been a substantial report with many specific and detailed recommendations, both for the Government and for industry. Those recommendations demand careful consideration and reflection. Clearly I am not in a position, nor are the Government, to give a comprehensive view on each and every one of them. It would be premature to produce any kind of detailed response to the commission's report.
	What I can say—in a sense I repeat a little of what was said in the Statement that we debated yesterday—is that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has welcomed the report on behalf of the Government and the valuable ideas that it contains. Obviously the report will give us new impetus and new ideas to drive forward the process of change and to respond to some of the challenges which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and other noble Lords have posed for the Government tonight in our efforts to ensure that there is a sustainable and healthy farming industry in this country.
	In relation to food production, a number of very important issues have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, raised the issue of prices paid by supermarkets to farmers. He will not need me to rehearse the commission's report and the code of practice which we certainly encourage and which the Curry commission suggests should be reviewed after two years.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, about encouraging supermarkets to promote British-produced food and ensure that it is given every advantage and is accessible.
	Of course securing reform of the CAP, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has suggested, will not be easy, but we are determined to do as much as we can, informed by what the Curry report suggests. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford have raised a number of questions about modulation. We want to explore the use of modulation. We certainly endorse the need to consider such shifts very carefully. There are limitations at present to what modulated money could be spent. There would have to be agreement in the CAP mid-term review to broaden the scope if we are to make use of modulation that the report proposes. But, subject to discussions with the devolved administrations and with the EU, increased flexibility on modulation will be the Government's objective.
	I have only one minute left if I am to allow the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to respond to the debate. Clearly I have not been able to cover all the points that have been raised. However, I want to come back to the substantive point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. The Government recognise the competitive pressures on the farming industry and the need for a level playing field in Europe. I would also say to the noble Earl that the opportunities that the Curry report lays out are opportunities. There is reference to new markets; to consumers wanting more authentic food; to ways of reconnecting with the farming industry; and to ways of ensuring that there is much greater co-operation between farmers in order to assert their own position in the market.
	While the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, described this as a "starry-eyed vision" and the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, described it as a "blue-sky vision", none the less vision is what we need. The commission's work will make a substantial contribution towards a new strategy for modern and adaptable farming in this country. I can assure noble Lords that the Government will do everything they can to make sure that that happens.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, we have had—the FSA would not object to my describing it thus—a "free-ranging" debate today, with a very balanced diet of speeches. The debate was tough on the one hand—I entirely agree with my noble friend that we should have an evidence-based policy—but it was tender on the other hand. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich on his speech which reminded us how important it is that we understand that there are people and communities involved in food policy.
	I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Sub-Saharan Africa

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: rose to call attention to the case for concerted international action, particularly among European Union member states, to promote democracy and sustainable development in sub-Saharan Africa; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, I start by welcoming the Minister to the debate. I gather that she has just got off a plane. I cannot remember from which continent. I recognise that Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers have relatively short shelf lives, partly because exhaustion sets in after the first 255 trans-continental flights. She has been doing extremely well on Zimbabwe, as we all recognise. We on these Benches do not intend that this debate should focus on Zimbabwe, as the House has had many other opportunities to discuss that and, sadly, will no doubt wish to have more. We want to focus on the broader issue of sub-Saharan Africa and what needs to be the British, European and developed world's response.
	In recent months, especially since September 11th, we have spent a lot of time talking about states of concern—weak states, failed states or what the Americans call "rogue" states. There has been great focus on Afghanistan, in the past on Libya, on Iraq and on North Korea. In Africa, there has been a greater focus on Somalia and—on what many of us feel to be unjustified grounds—on Sudan.
	But there is a far larger number of weak states across sub-Saharan Africa and a sadly small number of competent states with sound administrations and growing economies. Of the more than 40 states in sub-Saharan Africa, we can point to a few moderate success stories. There is progress in Senegal, for example, where the government have changed through democratic processes at least once and, with luck, will do so again. In spite of everything, Mozambique appears to be beginning to grow.
	Thanks to intelligent and well-measured intervention by the British Government, Sierra Leone appears so far to be a major success in conflict resolution, although one must say of the Sierra Leone intervention that it was not entirely about Sierra Leone but involved the question of Liberia and the Ivory Coast—the spill-over of conflict across the region was part of the problem. The conduct of some UN forces from other African states in the inefficient UN intervention also proved to be part of the problem.
	Having said that, however, many more states in Africa share the combination of problems that contribute to state collapse and internal conflict. Many of us remember that in 1960 the average income in Africa was estimated to be of the same order as that of south-east Asia. While south-east Asia has, on the whole, gone through extremely rapid growth, Africa has gone backwards. The population has doubled; poverty has doubled with it.
	We may read, for example, of the widespread and deep corruption in Kenya, of accusations of vote-rigging in the recent elections in Zambia and of the deep problems in Congo—where the recent volcanic eruption comes on top of sustained civil war, with foreign armies intervening partly to exploit Congo's resources for foreign public and private ends. Rwanda and Burundi have still not entirely recovered from the dreadful massacres and conflicts there. There have been recent riots in Nigeria and, of course, the dreadful explosions in Lagos. Nigeria suffers from a widespread popular mistrust of the state and of the army. An unnecessary border war has again broken out between Ethiopia and Eritrea.
	There are many common features to all of those problems. There is the exploitation of resources for private gain rather than for economic development. Those resources may be oil, as in Nigeria, Angola and some parts of the Sudan, diamonds—conflict diamonds, as they are called—or tropical wood, which, it is alleged, some companies with concessions in Congo are taking out of the country through neighbouring countries for private gain. Those countries share corrupt governments exploiting their own people. Even some governments who have been democratically elected hesitate to follow democratic rules or basic standards of good governance once in office.
	There are many cross-border conflicts. The spill-over across the artificial borders with which the European powers left Africa of criminal networks, private armies, state armies pursuing private profits, refugees and migrants compounds the problems that Africa faces. Cheap weapons are traded for illegal exports. All of that contributes to social collapse, which includes the spread of disease. The World Health Organisation estimates that about 25 million people in Africa have AIDS. There are outbreaks of cholera and tuberculosis—and occasional diseases such as Ebola.
	That is the pessimistic picture. When I read the World Bank group report, Can Africa Claim the 21st Century?, I noted that it attempts to be much more optimistic, with an emphasis on success stories. But even that report notes that the region needs to grow by at least 5 per cent a year to keep the number of poor from rising, given what is happening to the African population. If the percentage living in dire poverty is to be halved by 2015—to which the international community has committed itself—that means a huge effort to help Africa to develop. The report points out:
	"Africa accounts for barely 1 percent of global GDP and only about 2 percent of world trade. Its share of global manufactured exports is almost zero".
	If that is the best that one can do in terms of optimism, we clearly have many problems to face.
	I remember Bob Geldof talking about the famine in Ethiopia some years ago and saying, in the wonderfully politically incorrect way that only someone like him could, that the underlying problem was that Ethiopia was a country with a 14th century government struggling to cope with 20th century weapons and technology. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, said to me a while ago, "I understand that Scotland was rather like that at one time". We should not be too colonialist in that respect. We should recognise that, after all, African countries are attempting in two generations to move through stages of economic and social growth and state-building that took European states several centuries to go through. Our states went through many disastrous wars and internal conflicts and massacres before we emerged from that period.
	So it is not surprising that a continent that was in a pre-modern, tribal state—as with clanned Scotland not that long ago—should find it difficult to cope with that rapid transition. Of course, the issues are all interlinked. I note that the World Bank report has as one of its sub-headings,
	"Improving Governance, Managing Conflict and Rebuilding States".
	None of that is new. Many of your Lordships will remember the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, whom I regret is unable to be present today, when she was Minister for Overseas Development, talking about the need for good governance as the essential basis for any development programme, in Africa or elsewhere. Markets do not run themselves. The first essentials are order, government, a structure of law, roads and communications.
	Conflict resolution is a painful process; nation-building takes a long time. In this debate, we want to address the question: what is the appropriate British and international response? Many of us are happy with the way in which the Department for International Development has tackled that during the past four years, including linking defence to development and its focus on Africa. But many of us were also rather taken by surprise by the tone of the Prime Minister's speech in Brighton last October, in which he started by saying:
	"The state of Africa is a scar on the conscience of the world. But if the world as a community focused on it, we could heal it. And if we don't, it will become deeper and angrier".
	He went on to talk about a partnership for Africa, and said:
	"And I tell you if Rwanda happened again as it did in 1993, when a million people were slaughtered in cold blood, we would have a moral duty to act there also".
	That is a pretty ambitious agenda.
	One of the first questions that we must discuss in this debate is: does that pitch our ambitions too high? Is there any prospect that the British Government will find the resources—the money, the troops or the police and civilian officials to follow—to sustain the Prime Minister's claims? I should like to focus on two themes. First, that sort of ambition is far beyond the capability of Britain on our own. Any British government who declared such ambitions should spell out how exactly they propose to work with others to pursue them and through which multilateral frameworks. Secondly, we should be careful not to adopt too moral a tone or any sense in which it is our duty to bring the dark continent into the light, with all the echoes of Christian imperialism and the white man's burden that that will arouse among African leaders and in the sceptical and self-interested voters who take part in British elections.
	Instead, we should make it clear that European governments have no alternative but to engage in the reconstruction of sub-Saharan Africa. It is a matter of self-interest, but enlightened self-interest. Globalisation—to use a word beloved of third way theorists—means that the spill-over of conflicts in Africa into Europe is almost immediate in terms of asylum seekers and refugees. There are 100,000 Somalis in London who were not here 12 years ago. Many of them got here illegally, and many of them are still here illegally. If Sierra Leone had collapsed, we would have had hundreds of thousands—tens of thousands, at least—of Sierra Leoneans.
	There is a spill-over of disease. Tuberculosis has come back into this country from south Asia and Africa. There is a spill-over of criminal networks involved in drug smuggling and trafficking in women from west Africa. About once a week, I get an e-mail from someone in Sierra Leone, Nigeria or wherever, suggesting that I might just help in some fraudulent transaction or other. Europe is dependent on the resources of Africa—oil from Nigeria and Angola, tropical products of one sort or another. To make a light point, I must say that for those, like me, for whom chocolate is a necessity of life, Africa is extremely important.
	We need a concerted multilateral response, engaging the United States, Japan and other developed countries as far as we can, while recognising that the main responsibilities and the costs will fall upon European Governments. Africa is central to a more effective European common foreign and security policy. The United States has made it clear that its priorities lie elsewhere; it tends to be concerned with the Middle East and central Asia, while Africa is a matter for the Europeans.
	Africa is central to an effective European security and defence policy. When we discuss the Petersberg tasks, I hear European defence officials talk about matters ranging from flood relief in Mozambique all the way up to preventing conflict and social breakdown in an African state—the low end and the high end of the Petersberg tasks. We want the British Government to put the moral prime ministerial approach into a more specifically European context. I welcome the image of Jack Straw and Hubert Vedrine travelling through Africa together. That is far better than the old rivalry between France and Britain that we saw even during the last Congo conflict and the Great Lakes catastrophe. However, that is not yet enough; there must be a broader European response.
	Her Majesty's Government should spell out to our European partners a broad agenda, as we raise our development budget to the European average and beyond, to encourage others to do likewise, when there are many other calls on EU and national budgets. Secondly, we should continue to press for reform and greater efficiency in the Commission's development assistance programme. It is getting a little less inefficient and corrupt, but there is still a long way to go. Thirdly, we should co-ordinate national programmes and efforts more effectively. Fourthly, as the Prime Minister said in his Brighton speech, we should open up access to European markets to exports from these countries. Many of us will remember with deep embarrassment the long time that it took to sort out the South African trade agreement. Southern EU member states did their best to block that, for self-interested reasons. Fifthly, we should pursue more explicitly a European security and defence policy that recognises that the African continent is part of where we need to send our forces. It means that we need long-range airlift, something about which the Italian and German Governments are still not entirely convinced. Sixthly, we should join up EU policy on immigration, asylum and refugees with the common foreign and security policy and with development aid. Lastly, we should as far as possible draw other governments outside Europe into partnership with the EU's efforts.
	That is an ambitious agenda. I hope that people can be persuaded that it is a matter of enlightened self-interest. Nation building is a thankless and long-term task. Conflict resolution, as Britain has learnt in Northern Ireland and as we are all learning in former Yugoslavia, takes at least a generation. On the other hand, Sierra Leone has been a success. This morning, one of my colleagues quoted a French saying at me:
	"Africa is the last place on earth where with a battalion you have the chance of changing history".
	Let us make the effort—not for moral reasons so much as out of enlightened self-interest—a major plank of Britain's European engagement. I beg to move for Papers.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, on securing a debate on such urgent problems for our time. It would be daunting to attempt to follow his magisterial sweep, so I shall confine myself to narrower areas that are significant barriers to democracy and sustainable development: corruption, which has eroded the democratic power of the voter and the citizen; short-sighted disregard on the part of trading partners that ignores sustainable development and has created trade barriers that are grossly inequitable; and a means of financing better development.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that we should disaggregate sub-Saharan Africa. For some years, Botswana has taken its place as a democratic inhabitant of the upper income group. Mali and Senegal, which I visited last September, are poor but peaceable, not noticeably corrupt and perfectly at home with democracy. Cape Verde, to the west, has a parliamentary opposition whose loyalty would leave ours standing. Those countries need direct investment in keeping with sustainable development and more equitable terms of trade. The Government's International Development Bill will help, with its power to enable the Government to underwrite or take a share in the kind of direct investment that the traditional commercial companies, so devoted to capital-intensive projects and mineral extraction, will not undertake.
	As a former bureaucrat, I am keen on the underpinning of democracy by proper tax collection, accurate national records, accountability and probity in public officials. Those are the elements of good governance, as the noble Lord said. I congratulate the Department for International Development on its programmes to enhance the capability of the state in all those areas. Those programmes should be replicated by the international community. They will greatly assist with rooting out corruption. I declare an interest, as a council member of Transparency International (UK). Thriving national chapters of TI have strengthened local anti-corruption institutions in many countries. The more support that such voluntary organisations of civil society have, the more citizens will have the confidence to tackle corruption at home.
	We know that much large-scale corruption, although it must have local partners, does not come from home. It is the destructive accompanying export of some of the major contracting companies that build public utilities in many sub-Saharan countries. Only concerted international action will do. Unilateral action may not even affect the problem. A seamless structure of international obligations, implemented in all states, is required.
	I applaud the Government's initial implementation of the OECD Convention on Combating the Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in the Anti-Terrorism Act. That is a very good start. But the OECD will evaluate our legislation and may well find that we have some way to go. So the Government's announcement of a general review of the whole tapestry of anti-corruption legislation is welcome. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend on the Front Bench when it will report.
	The European Union has agreed a code, for which the UK was in the forefront of support, which lists sustainable development as one of the key criteria in licensing exports. And the UK Export Credit Guarantee Department has in its mission statement that it will ensure that its activities accord with sustainable development. It also said,
	"we will continue to press for these criteria to be adopted internationally by all official lending and guarantee agencies".
	I hope therefore that my noble friend can tell us that the criterion of sustainable development will be reinstated in the Export Control Bill.
	Direct investment is the single most important influence on economic growth. For instance, Ethiopia, which I visited last September, is now, pace Bob Geldof, poised for economic take-off. Its war is over. The government have a sensible programme of economic liberalisation. It has a cohesive and active civil society with some expert NGOs to assist government capacity-building, staffed with high-calibre and dedicated Ethiopian expertise, like SoS Sahel, in which I declare an interest as a board member. But Ethiopia needs development investment like food processing industries near to the sites of agricultural production, so that people do not flock to the towns in search of jobs, and so that the whole locality can benefit from growth. It needs programmes to bring demobbed soldiers into food production.
	If all those who are capable of being partners in foreign investment were to bind themselves to respect sustainable development, countries like Ethiopia would soon stop needing humanitarian aid.
	Trade barriers are a negative concerted international action, if ever there was one. Following the World Bank's report on Global Economic Prospects 2002, I hope that we can move towards abolishing them.
	Sub-Saharan countries themselves of course also have tariffs. But until their agricultural exports have fair global market access, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said, they cannot accumulate the resources for their own development. Subsidies to OECD agriculture are equal to the whole of Africa's gross domestic product. The European Union has a large task here. I hope that my noble friend can say what efforts the Government are making to propel European action in this direction.
	Finally, is not the development of a tax on international currency transactions, to finance development assistance, an idea whose time is rapidly advancing? I suggest that the United Nations conference, Financing for Development, to be held in Monterrey in two months' time, would be an excellent forum for reaching agreement on the principles of this imaginative proposal.

Lord Elton: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for introducing this important debate and to congratulate him on the enormous sweep of the subject he has chosen and, indeed, on the speech that he made. In many respects I wish that I could follow him, in particular in opening out the Prime Minister's policy, and in explaining to noble Lords and, I hope, persuading a few of my colleagues of the importance of realising that we have to achieve a fairer distribution and balance between resources and populations throughout the world if we are to achieve stability and democracy.
	However, I cannot do that. That is because I once stood in a village in sub-Saharan Africa and watched a group of around 30 people waving placards as they held an impromptu dance in their street. It was a beautiful evening in a beautiful and prosperous country. The man standing next to me said with delight, "These people were throwing petrol bombs into each other's homes six weeks ago. Now they've swapped placards to celebrate the peace". The year was 1979; the date was 16th April; I was in the country we now call Zimbabwe; and it was eve of poll for the first round of independence elections. The placards were election placards, which were being swapped among supporters of the opposing parties. I have no other authority than that to speak to noble Lords, except for the reason why I was there, which I shall come to in a moment. Furthermore, I have no other interest to declare than my delight in, affection and esteem for those dancing people, along with the rest of the population of their then really beautiful and prosperous country.
	What a contrast is the state of their country today, as well as the approach to the impending election. I venture to speak because I was privileged to be one of the five commissioners, headed by my noble friend the late Viscount Boyd of Merton, who reported on that election to my then right honourable friend and now noble friend Lady Thatcher, immediately after she became Prime Minister. The only threat we discovered to the fairness of that election was that Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo refused to take part, and that their Zanla and Zipra guerrillas respectively sought unsuccessfully to disrupt and discredit it. It is ironic that the then government of that country had to use military power to secure a fair election against Robert Mugabe's efforts, and that Robert Mugabe's government now appears to be using every available force to enforce an unfair election, and that the head of his forces states that he will disregard the result if he does not like it.
	Our report, which is deposited with the papers held in the Library of the House, shows that we travelled over 2,000 miles to destinations of our own choice. We visited 66 polling stations. My colleagues, who stayed on after I had to return to the United Kingdom because of our own general election, also visited 17 counting centres. To give noble Lords only one of many indications of the extent of our independence, it was such that I was able to visit the country's biggest prison, enter every wing, see all its inmates, select a dozen at random, appoint one as interpreter and have the warders leave me entirely alone with them while I questioned them.
	Is that what Robert Mugabe is afraid of, that people with the ear of a free Parliament might see how the coming election is conducted, that they might witness what has been done to the citizens of that country—which he found in prosperity and which, after almost a quarter of a century of independence, is now on the edge of bankruptcy—and hear what he has done to those citizens and what they think of him? If he is not afraid, he should let in the international observers right now, guarantee their safety and let them go wherever they want to go, see what they want to see, and talk to whom they want to talk.
	I believe that, in spite of the unsatisfactory approach to them, the elections should go ahead. I say that, but no doubt noble Lords will have seen, for instance, the report of Physicians for Human Rights/Denmark, whose representatives have just returned from Zimbabwe with photographs of actual victims of torture. Your Lordships will have seen the news releases from the Movement for Democratic Change and know that the Government of Zimbabwe have ruled that everyone must have an identity card and that people cannot vote without divulging their identity. The authorities allowed some MDC members to enter an arena for an election rally. Leaving aside what went on between the authorities and the unfortunate people in the arena, their identity cards were removed when they left and the rest of the rally was prevented from taking place. All that should be known and will be known to the observers.
	The election should proceed because the impressive feature of the much more peaceful elections that I witnessed was the extraordinary robustness of people when faced with attempts to intimidate them. The size of the turn-out—quite irrespective of who voted for whom—was an enormous endorsement of democracy and faith in the country, which I hope may still be rescued from complete destruction.
	What is the present President of Zimbabwe seeking to protect by his extraordinary behaviour, apart from his ambition—which has been clear from the first? At the centre of Zimbabwe has been a steadily shrinking core of prosperity, security and comfort for those gathered around President Mugabe. It is that he is defending—and those who benefit are supporting the president in his defence. I hope that every means will be taken to adopt the method known as smart sanctions, so that that wealthy, privileged and undemocratic core will be exposed to the same economic hardship as the rest of Zimbabwe, and that those at the centre of it will be named and their resources frozen. Then all of them will have an interest in a change of policy and in a country in which it will be possible to live safely and prosperously.
	We cannot do too much because—in the view of the propaganda with which Zimbabwe is being fed—we are tainted by a history of colonialism. Our colleagues in Europe are not so tainted. The greatest and best pressure can come from South Africa. Nelson Mandela has already spoken out. Our friends in Germany and, to a lesser extent, in France may have interests in Zimbabwe that they wish to protect.
	Let us do whatever we possibly can to secure peace and democracy in Zimbabwe.

Lord Joffe: My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chair of Oxfam and a trustee of a number of other development and human rights non-governmental organisations.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for introducing this debate and giving us the opportunity to discuss issues that are of critical importance not only to the people of sub-Saharan Africa but also to those fortunate enough to live in the developed world. As the Prime Minister has said, one illusion was shattered on 11th September—that we can have the good life of the West, irrespective of the state of the rest of the world.
	Before discussing the actions needed to promote democracy and sustainable development, regard must be had to the present prospects of the 591 million inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, spoke in some detail but I will risk repeating some of the statistics that he provided.
	The prospects for those people are depressing—a dire present and a bleak future. Twenty seven million of them have HIV or AIDS; one third suffer from malnutrition; average life expectancy is 47 years, compared with an average of 77 years in OECD countries; and annual per capita GNP is only 530 dollars—barely one fortieth of the OECD average of 20,000 dollars, which is an astonishing and alarming difference.
	The continent is wracked with war and conflict. In the Sudan, 2 million people have died in a civil war financed by government oil revenues. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2.5 million have died in the past five years, as seven African countries have involved themselves in furthering or protecting their interests. In Angola, one child in three never reaches the age of five and 78 per cent of the rural inhabitants live in abject poverty as a result of 28 years of war. Civil conflict and war rage also in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea, Burundi and other countries.
	Against that background, it is immensely encouraging that the Prime Minister and fellow G8 leaders are taking historic steps in working with African governments to tackle the continent's problems. They have convened a G8 Africa task force to address the issues—about which the Minister is, I am sure, far better informed—with a view to reporting to the G8 summit in June. Simultaneously, African leaders are developing their own new partnership for African development. Those initiatives give real hope of concrete progress towards the millennium development goal. It is particularly welcome that the Prime Minister is visiting Africa to discuss the continent's development agenda.
	Broad agreement has been reached by senior officials of African governments and EU officials on eight priority areas, with the intention of developing joint action in each of them. Those areas are conflict prevention and resolution, including anti-personnel mines; co-operation and regional integration; integration of Africa in the world economy and trade; environment, including the fight against drought and desertification; HIV/AIDS and other communicable diseases; food security; human rights and democracy; the restitution of stolen or illegally exported cultural goods; and Africa's external debt.
	Those are all priorities on which there is broad agreement by the United Nations, the World Bank and others. It is an impressive list but the challenge is to move from identifying areas to producing achievable plans, then to translating them into concrete action. It is essential that EU governments and the rest of the developed world work in concert. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace said, it is not possible for the United Kingdom alone to make a significant difference. Unless each nation honours its commitments, it will not be possible to make real progress.
	That is well illustrated by past overseas development assistance. In 1970, it was agreed that 0.7 per cent of gross national product should be spent on ODA but that provided by the 22 members of the OECD's Development Assistance Committee in 2000 was, on average, only 0.22 per cent. If the DAC members had reached the 0.7 per cent target, aid would have increased by approximately 100 billion dollars per year. Estimates based on United Nations figures suggest that in the region of 25 billion dollars to 35 billion dollars per year would have been sufficient for Africa to achieve the targets set out in the 2015 development goals—which do not look as though they will be reached.
	Working in concert requires a comprehensive and cohesive master plan, the constituent parts of which reinforce one another, rather than a series of one-off and sometimes contradictory activities. The Danish Government, which takes over the presidency of the EU in July, have in mind what they refer to as a "global deal", which is precisely such a plan. They also are believed to have agreed to treat sustainable development and the environment as a priority during their presidency.
	There is no doubt about the good intentions expressed in the rhetoric of the developed countries. The challenge will be to match the rhetoric with action. A key part of that action will be the provision of much of the finance and resources that are required to implement the agreed action plans, and living with the consequences of opening their markets to exports from the developing countries.
	Unless the developed countries are prepared to live with these consequences—which, in the short term, could have a negative impact on industries such as textiles and farming—they cannot expect the developing countries to open up their markets to the exports of the developed countries.
	The eminent commentator, Martin Wolf, has pointed out in the Financial Times that the advanced countries insist that developing countries should adjust to market forces. Yet, notwithstanding their vastly greater ability to cushion the plight of the losers, the developed countries themselves have been unwilling to accept the same adjustments.
	He also draws attention to the anti-dumping procedures that developed countries are determined to defend, even though it is clear that they are intrinsically protectionist and violate fundamental competition principles through, for example, the export subsidies which the EU provides on farm surpluses.
	In summary, there is an exciting opportunity to transform the future of sub-Saharan Africa, but it comes at a cost in the short term to the developed nations of the world. Whether or not they will be willing to match their actions to their rhetoric and accept that cost will determine the outcome.
	In conclusion, I should like to pay tribute to the Government for the lead they have given in addressing the issue of poverty, both in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere throughout the world, through the remarkable initiatives of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the work of the Secretary of State for DfID, supported by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, and now through the lead taken by the Prime Minister. I should add that this tribute would have been even more fulsome if the Government had produced a timetable showing by when they aim to increase development aid assistance to the 0.7 per cent UN target, and if they had not inexplicably withdrawn sustainable development as a purpose for imposing export controls in the Export Control Bill. There is still time, though, to put it back.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, in 10 seconds, perhaps I may gently suggest to your Lordships that there are only five minutes allowed for the gap and there are a further 16 speakers. I do not refer to the previous speeches, which have all been extremely interesting, but if everyone exceeds the time allowed by 30 seconds we shall be in a real pickle at the end.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, among the major issues covered by my noble friend in his masterly speech was the connection between internal armed conflict in many states and the plundering of resources that belong to those people. I wish to talk about Angola and the Great Lakes region, both of which are potentially very rich but where war has displaced 6 million people, killed more than 5 million and destroyed vast amounts of property, leaving the survivors destitute in the midst of plenty. The international community has already done a great deal to find ways of stopping these conflicts, but more needs to be done.
	In Angola, there is agreement that the UN should play a more proactive role in the peace process, and Mr Savimbi has at last shown some willingness to compromise, no doubt because the scales have turned against him in the conflict. There have been defections from UNITA and Savimbi is said to be cornered in the eastern province of Moxico, where his forces are surrounded by the Angolan army.
	Sanctions have played an important role in bringing about the improvement in the situation in Angola, but have the leads to arms dealers and illicit diamond traders identified by the monitoring mechanism been followed? Mr Peter Hain called on the United Arab Emirates to shut down the air freight business of Victor Bout, a Russian accused of trafficking weapons to rebel movements in Africa. What did the international community do to bring pressure to bear on Mr Bout and other traffickers? Is it true that he has been given immunity by the international community because his aircraft have been helping to ferry goods to humanitarian programmes in Afghanistan?
	Russia, Bulgaria, Romania and Ukraine were identified as states from which arms were shipped to UNITA. They all belong to the OSCE, which has a good code of conduct on arms sales but one which is only politically rather than legally binding. Participating states agreed in 1993 that they would avoid arms transfers which would be likely to,
	"prolong or aggravate an existing armed conflict".
	How could this be more effectively enforced? One possibility may be to establish an independent OAU institution to monitor end user certificates, with a view to preventing the use of forgery and ensuring that no state allows itself to be used as a conduit for the transfer of weapons to non-state armed forces. Eastern European states ought to be reminded of the obligations they have undertaken and invited to tighten up the criteria they use for awarding licences in the light of evidence that weapons and ammunition originating in their territory have been illegally transferred to UNITA.
	In Angola, it is estimated that 40 per cent of the state's revenues goes on defence, compared with only 5 per cent for education and 3 per cent for health. But 3 billion US dollars in annual oil taxes and royalties do not appear in the national accounts. It is widely believed that President Dos Santos and his cronies are siphoning off huge sums for their own enrichment. As far as we are able to do so, we should lean on Angola to end the corruption, which, according to the Washington Post, is,
	"so malignant that it has metastasized to virtually every level of the public sector".
	We and the EU should follow the Dutch example and insist that all disbursements of aid should be handled through NGOs. We should demand transparency in the use of oil revenues and we should encourage and help to pay for research to find out independently where the money is going. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and her Transparency International can assist in this process.
	In the DRC, neighbouring states have been themselves involved in military operations, in association with various armed groups, and are plundering the nation's wealth, Zimbabwe most actively. The panel of experts on the illegal exploitation of natural resources and other forms of wealth of DR Congo describes the widespread looting of timber, diamonds, gold and Coltan, a mineral from which the rare metals niobium and tantalum are extracted.
	Zimbabwe is involved in the looting through the defence forces-owned company, OSLEG, of which the armed forces commander, General Vitalis Zvinavashe, is personally an important shareholder, and there is a joint venture between OSLEG and the DRC company, COMIEX, which,
	"acts as the Government's main platform for commercial deals and is reportedly linked to the President and senior Ministers".
	This joint venture between the Zimbabweans and the Congolese, COSLEG, formed a subsidiary for the exploitation of timber in the DRC and teamed up with an Isle of Man company, Western Hemisphere Capital Management, which provided the capital and technical resources in return for 60 per cent of the equity. The panel reports that the Zimbabwean forces have already carried out intensive logging operations in Katanga, and your Lordships will have seen the article in the Observer on Sunday reporting that the hardwood is to be sold through a company called African Hardwood Marketing, owned by Mr Elkin Pianim, who is apparently the sole shareholder also of WHCM. He may also have something to do with Western Hemisphere Resources, which has a joint venture with COSLEG to exploit DRC diamonds, according to the Observer.
	With regard to diamonds, gems produced by the Société Minière de Bakwanga, MIBA, were systematically embezzled by company personnel and the profits from industrial grades have been skimmed by the authorities to the tune of millions of dollars. MIBA entered into an agreement with the Zimbabwean Defence Forces to exploit the most valuable of that company's holdings with an estimated production value of several billion dollars. The outside technical expertise and financial resources were provided in this case by Oryx Natural Resources, a company based in the Cayman Islands but with a London-based director, which is said to own 49 per cent of the concession. It employs 750 people at the 25-year concession in Mbuji Mayi, and it claims that it will produce 10 per cent of the total supply of the world's diamonds by 2004.
	I hope that the Minister can assure the House that the UN investigation of the illegal exploitation of resources in the DRC, of which these are examples, will continue indefinitely, and that it will have the full co-operation of the Government, particularly when it comes to unearthing the facts about companies registered under the murky systems of British dependencies.
	I agree with the statement of the European parliamentarians that we should aim to achieve an EU common position on the Great Lakes region as a whole. I join my noble friend in welcoming the visit last week by Mr Straw and M Védrine to the region, even if they did return empty-handed.
	The parliamentarians listed areas in which they suggested that there should be harmonisation of European policies. It would be useful to know whether the Government intend to let them have a written answer, as they would have done had the recommendations come from a Select Committee.
	Europe, acting together, has the resources to make a difference to the future of the Great Lakes, helping all the peoples of the region towards a new start, free of corruption and oppression.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, I, too, want to talk about Zimbabwe, one of the countries of greatest importance in southern Africa.
	The murder of Zimbabwe by Mr Mugabe has been going on for two years. But until now, western governments, including this Government, have limited themselves to expressions of concern. I cannot understand why no action has been taken until now. Why was not action taken two years ago—in the form of sanctions or Zimbabwe's proposed suspension from the Commonwealth—when the parliamentary elections were condemned by teams of international observers of great repute? All the factors that have led to the current action were present then. If sanctions and suspension will work now, why would they not have worked then? A report in 2001 by an important delegation from the International Bar Association said that the rule of law was breaking down and democracy was at risk. Nothing was done about the report.
	The reign of terror is moving on. It is now being legitimised by authoritarian laws. The countryside is being militarised by the creation of command centres at every level—at central government level, at regional level and in every one of the 120 constituencies. These command centres are to consist of elements of the army, the police, the ZANU-PF party, the paramilitaries, the central intelligence agency and, not least, the ZANU-PF youth. By election day, 2,000 members of the youth militia will be present in each constituency. These people will have received 10 days' training. Anyone who understands training knows what that means. It indicates what they are there for. In addition, 10,000 troops will be deployed in civilian clothes all over the country. All of this is to make sure that Mr Mugabe "wins". Other methods too are being adopted. A new law bans election monitors and agents from travelling with the ballot boxes—to allow, of course, stuffing or changing of the boxes.
	My first political recollection is of Germany in the late 1930s. It resembled what is happening in Zimbabwe today. That is where that country is heading. The media are being put increasingly under control. There is no independent radio or television. There is no access to the television for the opposition parties except with the permission of the government. Mr Moyo, the Information Minister, said some time ago that he would "deal with" the independent press. The following day, the premises of one of the principal independent papers were blown up. The Public Order and Security Act makes it a crime to criticise the president or other leaders, and the penalty for conviction under the Act is a maximum of five years in prison or 100,000 Zimbabwe dollars. Independent journalists are taken to court on the flimsiest of accusations, thus incurring high legal costs. The police can ban rallies for up to 90 days.
	Mr Eddison Zvobgo, a member of Mr Mugabe's cabinet for a very long time and a ZANU-PF member for 20 years, described the original access to information Bill (which I believe has been slightly changed) as:
	"the most calculated and determined assault on the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution".
	Will the Minister say whether it is true that the BBC has been banned by the Zimbabwe Government from taking part in the election coverage?
	I have had the pleasure and the honour of meeting in the past few days two remarkable and brave Zimbabweans, Professor Eliphas Mukonoweshuro and Mr Mark Chavanduka. The professor is an expert on elections and teaches at the university of Harare, and Mr. Chavanduka is the editor of the Zimbabwe Standard. He was tortured in 1999, but he still carries on editing his paper. These gentlemen have, I am glad to say, made many appearances on TV—although I have not had the pleasure of seeing any of them—during their brief time in this country. They have briefed quite a large number of Conservative Members of Parliament, and I understand that they have briefed the Liberal Democrats. However, according to my information, not a single Labour Member of Parliament has taken the opportunity, although it was offered to them, of meeting the two men.
	A request was made to meet the noble Baroness the Minister, who I understand was abroad. They asked whether they could see Mr Bradshaw, who speaks in the Commons for the Foreign Office on African matters. But the explanation was given that they could not see him as it would be against protocol. I was a member of the Foreign Service for 11 years and a Minister at the Foreign Office for a number of years. I have never heard of any such rule of protocol. Their request to meet members of the No. 10 political unit was conveyed in a fax message on 24th January. They received no reply.
	Those gentlemen are now in the United States, where they will be received by Mr Walter Kansteiner, who is Assistant Secretary in the State Department and ranks as a Minister. What impression does the Minister believe will have been given to those two important Zimbabweans about the British Government? What impression will they convey to their friends when they return to Zimbabwe?
	I believe that the failure to receive these two gentlemen mirrors the lack of action and the lack of government policy in the past two years. This Government are in favour of an "ethical foreign policy". The Prime Minister made an impassioned speech, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, at the last Labour Party conference in which he called for a partnership with Africa whose emphasis would be on democracy and human rights. The Prime Minister said recently that this country would play "a pivotal role" on the international scene. If these are the aims of this Government, how do they relate their policy on Zimbabwe to them?

Lord Bhatia: My Lords, I declare my interest in sub-Saharan Africa as I was born in the region and lived there until 1970. I therefore know the region and the problems that face many of its countries.
	The population of the sub-Saharan region is about 590 million, of whom many were formerly under British rule. We in Britain have close ties and moral responsibilities towards them. Therefore, sustainable development in these countries should be of importance to us.
	With an average life expectancy of 48.8 years and a per capita GNP of 530 US dollars for sub-Saharan people, compared with figures for the OECD countries of 76.6 years and 20,000 US dollars, we can all agree that much needs to be done.
	It is heartening to hear that our Prime Minister and fellow G8 leaders are taking steps to tackle the problems of Africa. I applaud that, but over the years, I have seen many failed initiatives by Britain, Europe, the USA, the World Bank, the IMF, the UNDP, the UN and other agencies, so I urge caution and good planning. The sustainable development definition implies a programme of development in the long term. We in the West have to make a similar long-term commitment of sustainable support. Too often such initiatives from the West are short term, or a flavour of the year phenomenon, so the problems are never resolved but become bigger and more complex.
	My plea to the G8 leaders is, "Please, this is a good idea, but go for it only if you have the desire and will to stay with it over a sustained period". Short-termism is costly for the West and devastating for the African countries.
	How do we participate in the process? I use the word "participate" advisedly. We cannot deliver a programme of sustainable development; we can only be participants. The lead must be given to the people of Africa. Unless we empower them and give them control of their destinies, the noble concept of sustainable development will end up in the dustbin of failed programmes of the West.
	I pray that the G8 nations will bring together a consortium of participants to deliver sustainable development. The participants should be G8 nations, NGOs such as Oxfam, WaterAid, International Alert and many others. I declare an interest as an ex-trustee of two of those NGOs, and as a current trustee of WaterAid, along with some local NGOs and world bodies. However, we must make the countries themselves the lead members to achieve sustainable development.
	Too often it is forgotten that the local people on the ground know the solutions to the problems. Although well meaning, we often deliver solutions from the West without a full understanding of the culture, capacities and real concern of those communities. In my lifetime, I have seen huge programmes go to waste because the programmes and the technologies were inappropriate to the needs of the countries. What is best and works for the West may often not work in African countries.
	A major block in sustainable development is capacity building. To ensure that the countries concerned can sustain development work, investment has to be made in education at all levels, but specifically and urgently in training a cadre of civil servants in the sub-Saharan region of Africa who can run the development programmes professionally. The British Civil Service is in many places the envy of the world and we need to impart the culture of dedicated "Civil Service" to the sub-Saharan African countries.
	There are many other issues that need to be mentioned, but I should like to emphasise two more. First, I refer to the reduction of conflict, which has two parts. Initially, a strong programme of conflict resolution must be built up and, secondly, the arms trade must be stopped. Difficult or impossible though that may sound, unless the West and the G8 leaders decide to address those issues, the resources of the poorest of poor countries, both in money and human terms, will consume all the aid and resources that we provide. The arms trade, which fuels conflicts and brings poverty and distress, has to be stopped. I believe that it is within our powers to do that.
	Secondly, I refer to corruption which can take place only when there is someone ready to bribe and someone ready to receive the bribe. Both parties are guilty, but I believe that those who bribe are more guilty. I am talking not about the petty corruption that goes on everywhere but about the bribes and back-handers provided by western suppliers of goods, arms and services to the African countries. I was once told reliably that only 44 per cent of NGO funds reached the people and that the rest was skimmed off by the bureaucracies in a third world country. Unless we in the West are willing to crack down heavily on those who give bribes and back-handers, all our sustainable development work will be severely damaged or negated.
	Over many years I have become cynical, but I have somehow managed to remain optimistic. There is always hope. The problems that we see today in sub-Saharan Africa are the problems that we saw in the 1970s and 1980s. They are only bigger, more complex and more difficult. We must examine why things went wrong and suggest new solutions. We need to empower the local people, build their capacities to solve their problems and extend the helping hand where needed without imposing ourselves.
	Africa has its history, culture and traditions, but perhaps the West in the past 150 years has ignored those important elements. We need to bring back respect and pride to the sub-Saharan countries and help them to help themselves on the road to sustainable development. I conclude by quoting Jack Straw, who said recently:
	"Britain's responsibility for Africa is a moral one. In terms of Europe's colonial legacy, we exploited Africa more unambiguously than we did anywhere else in the world. Now we can't let a great continent go down".
	If we accept that profound statement, we need to commit ourselves to helping to make Africa a great continent in years to come.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Blaker, I, too, have met two deeply impressive citizens of Zimbabwe—an academic and a journalist, Mark Chavanduka from the Standard, who is well known for his principled and brave criticisms of the regime, and who was tortured in 1999. They spoke in the presence of an aggressive Zimbabwean High Commissioner whose method of debate was to bellow and hector, but who did state categorically when pressed that, just as Mugabe said in Malawi, Zimbabwe would accept observers, though not monitors and journalists. I hope that his bluff will be called.
	It is good that the EU has now stipulated that observers must go in by next week. Today the Foreign Secretary, the Australians and Canadians are to urge the Commonwealth to take action against Mugabe, but fear that the African and Asian members may not support them. Will Uganda, Sierra Leone and Nigeria—grossly deceived over the Abuja Agreement—really not speak out for Africa and condemn the man who is destroying not only his own country but several others? Have the Scandinavians, who are widely respected by the third world, been asked to work on the Commonwealth countries and in the UN? Could not Nelson Mandela, who has seen for himself the devastation in the Great Lakes caused by war, be asked to use his influence?
	Did Mr Straw and Mr Vedrine urge President Kabila, in the context of the troubled situation in the Congo, to send the Zimbabwean army home and, incidentally, stop the pillage of the forests? Its senior officers have been bought by Mugabe, but when the troops see what has been happening to their families at home, they are likely to be far less supportive than their officers and will vote accordingly.
	The Commonwealth Secretariat holds copies of the Danish report on the terrible and widespread torture in Zimbabwe, to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred, and which was published this week. Since when has the Commonwealth accepted torture in a Commonwealth country and refused to act? It is not reassuring that the Secretary-General's African adviser two years ago proved to be a director of Oryx, the diamond firm.
	The two brave Zimbabweans reported on the latest developments in a crisis that has now lasted for four years. In that time thousands of Africans have been made refugees and the country is about to starve, not least because the object of the so-called veterans' attacks on farms is primarily to loot and terrorise. Burning the maize crop is part of that.
	In the past few years Mugabe has systematically disenfranchised urban voters who would vote against him, terrorised rural voters, abandoned the rule of law, armed large numbers of young men trained to beat and kill, abolished normal procedure for the protection of the ballot box and excluded observers and monitors. Above all, by excluding all journalists and making it unlawful even to criticise Mugabe, he has effectively sealed the country, neutralised the opposition and prevented the truth from being known. Even if, with immense bravery, the people were to vote against him, their votes would be destroyed. If we do not send in observers and monitors now, we shall have connived in the murder of a free people. Black and white citizens are sharing a common suffering and are longing for the restoration of law.
	Why are we not reminding the world of the offers made by the UK, along with many other countries, at the donors' conference of 1998—as well as at Abuja—together with UN and World Bank help, and their flagrant rejection by Mugabe? We should renew that offer publicly, making it conditional on free elections. Mugabe has been given chance after chance. As deadlines have passed there has been no action.
	The events of September last have overshadowed even this terrible threat to an innocent people. It is not only in Afghanistan that a bloody civil war born of despair could come if Mugabe wins. Win or lose, there will be many thousands of unemployed young men with guns in their hands and the habit of killing.
	The two Zimbabweans brought vital news from a closed country. They left yesterday for Washington, where they are to see the Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, visit the Africa Bureau in the White House, Lorne Cramer, Colin Powell's special adviser on human rights, the top man in the National Security Council, as well as Congressmen and Senators on the powerful Foreign Affairs Committee. They saw senior members of the EU last week, notably the Spaniards and the French. This morning Monsieur Vedrine, Mr Straw's recent travelling companion, and the French Foreign Minister asked for a briefing on their mission from the Zimbabwe Democracy Trust, which arranged their visit.
	Who saw them from the British Government at this critical time? I make, without apology, the point made by my noble friend Lord Blaker: no one saw them, no one. Mr Straw could not see them, for the good reason that he was at the EU. The noble Baroness, Lady Amos, was due to be in New York at the UN—unfortunate, but unavoidable. I am sure that she was doing vital work there. It is a tragedy that she was not here. But what about Peter Hain? He had other engagements. What about Mr Bradshaw? As my noble friend told the House, his office explained that, although he spoke for the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, in the other place, it would be against protocol for him to see them.
	So the two Zimbabweans saw two desk officers in the FCO—no Labour MPs, no Ministers. What of No. 10? The trust spoke to those in the Policy Unit who deal with Africa. A fax was requested, after which the trust was told that everyone was too busy. The trust then sent a second fax urging the current importance of the issue and detailing the programme in Washington. No reply was received. So, at this critical moment when the fate of Zimbabwe is in the balance, no Minister, no representative of the Government—in the unfortunate absence of the noble Baroness—has had time to listen. The French have, the Americans will. The people of Zimbabwe, especially when they also remember our policy on asylum until last week, will draw their own conclusions. They will not be to the credit of this country, or advance our future relations. I hate to think what conclusions the Americans will draw. I find it very hard to believe that the Prime Minister is not concerned, given his recent declared interest in Africa.
	Perhaps I may urge most strongly that we should insist on: a British presence among the observers; entry for all journalists, and, above all, the BBC—for the World Service is widely respected; a clear promise that there should be a free and fair election with an end to violence, an instant package of food and medical aid, help for the thousands of refugees on the borders and in the country, and a long-term development programme to be coupled with action on the land issue, with UN supervision. I have considerable faith in the capacity of the noble Baroness's ministry to do this both fast and well as part of an international effort. Such action could solve half the refugee problem. It is the Africans on the farms who have been driven out. The farmers themselves have many constructive proposals in this area. It could also give the opposition something to offer the people and thereby stop the destabilisation. Moreover, Zimbabwe has the infrastructure.
	Meanwhile, I hope that the press and the media will provide the fullest possible coverage of events in Zimbabwe, and on its borders. Why do we see no photographs of refugees who have been flooding across the South African border for months now? The Government must end the quiet diplomacy that has allowed Mugabe to get away with, literally, murder; they must come out openly as the champion of the rule of law and of the people.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend Lord Wallace for giving us the opportunity for this debate, I should like to concentrate my remarks solely on the subject of the World Summit on Sustainable Development that is due to be held in Johannesburg during the last week of August and the first week of September this year. In talking about the Earth Summit—sometimes known as, "Rio + 10"—some of the issues that we have been discussing will come into focus.
	The summit is a highly significant occasion, and the location is even more significant because the global agenda that will be discussed has moved on subtly from Rio 10 years ago, which was primarily about the environment, to being about both the poverty agenda and the environment. Therefore, it is particularly appropriate that the summit should be held in the developing world; and especially appropriate that it should be held in South Africa on the African continent. Sub-Saharan Africa has that uniquely deadly combination that makes up world poverty—the 1.5 billion people who we find are excluded from the world's table—both poor countries and poor populations are to be found in the area.
	The International Red Cross estimates that 50 per cent of its staff and 34 per cent of its expenditure for the whole world is now concentrated in Africa. However, there are some bright spots, many of which have already been mentioned in this debate. Looking at Mozambique, Mali or Uganda 10 years ago, I believe that all of us would be astounded by the progress that has been made. Some very fine achievements can also be seen in Namibia and Botswana. But, above all, our hopes rest on the success of South Africa. It is almost impossible to exaggerate how important it is not just to Africa but also to the world that South Africa should succeed—yet South Africa still has a fragile economy and society, with millions of poor and excluded people within its population.
	As much of this evening's discussion has been about Zimbabwe, perhaps I may tell the Minister parenthetically that it seems obvious that the serious secondary significance of that deadly combination in that country of incompetence, corruption and tyranny is its roll-on effect on South Africa, together with the threat that it poses to the last and best hope for freedom, democracy and prosperity on the African continent.
	Sub-Saharan Africa really needs a "hand up". I am not saying that it does not need a "hand out", because it does. Indeed, through DfID, the British Government have been admirable in what they have done and are seeking to achieve in the area. However, we need, as does the rest of the world, to promote economic activity and growth—the 5 per cent from the World Bank figures referred to by my noble friend. We also need direct foreign investment, working synergistically as far as possible with overseas development assistance; in other words, with the two working together to try to produce some sort of economic improvement. That means the involvement of business on a much larger scale in Africa, which, for some fairly obvious reasons, has been too much of a "no-go area" for international companies considering investment. But business is needed: making investments, creating capacity and jobs always—it is to be hoped—in a responsible way in terms of the environment and of social effects.
	Here I should declare an interest as vice-chairman of the Global Business Coalition, which has formed the "Business Action for Sustainable Development" to ensure that world business is present in Johannesburg as a constructive partner for sustainable development, which is so much needed. The aim is to make of Johannesburg not just another meeting of heads of government, but what in South Africa is called, an Indaba—an Indaba of the world's stakeholders—to address some of these grievous problems of poverty, disease, migration, environmental depredation, clean water and sustainable energy, and to do so together.
	One of the more encouraging initiatives in recent weeks has been the formation—I hope I pronounce it correctly—of NePAD, which stands for the New Partnership for Africa's Development. This is an African initiative that links the issues of good governance to economic development. Indeed, Thabo Mbeki has played a leading role in the process. I should pay a tribute here to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for International Development, and the noble Baroness, all of whom have played an outstanding leadership role and demonstrated a commitment to Africa, not least in respect of this initiative in which several British companies are also involved. When she responds to the debate, perhaps the Minister could tell the House a little more about NePAD, and how its exclusion of corrupt and unaccountable governments bears on the regime in Zimbabwe.
	I shall refer briefly to two other aspects of the world summit. One wholly admirable aspiration is that when the captains and the kings depart in September—the great men come in and leave—a tangible legacy should be left behind in South Africa and in sub-Saharan Africa as a whole. The local branch of "Business Action for Sustainable Action" (the business co-ordinating forum) is working with the South African Government to produce a menu of projects both large and small from very large FDI projects, Agenda 21 projects, carbon-dioxide and clean water projects, as well as micro credit projects, which are especially important in Africa for empowering women. I simply tell your Lordships that it is important for everyone who engages in the summit not to think that it is just a talk-shop; it is a way of leaving tangible benefits behind in an area of the world that desperately needs them. I hope that what I have said applies to governments, NGOs, universities and the media, as well as to those businesses going to Johannesburg.
	I have one ticklish subject to raise. The South African Government are having a lot of trouble funding the summit. I am well aware that, unlike some other governments, Her Majesty's Government have made some proper pledges to support the summit, but the South African Government are facing a serious deficit in funding the occasion, which is so much in the world's interests. I hope that our Government, together with other European Union countries and other friendly countries who want the summit to succeed, will ensure that the South African Government, who can ill afford it, are not left holding the baby for this important occasion.
	Following September 11th, we cannot overestimate the importance of a successful summit for sustainable development. We have had a coalition against something—against global terrorism. Now is the chance to have a coalition for something—for a more cohesive world and for sustainable development. That could happen at Johannesburg. The omens are not all good and the prospects are somewhat precarious, but Her Majesty's Government have made a major contribution. I simply ask the Minister to say what more they can do to ensure the success of that very important occasion.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on securing prime time for Africa. We have entered one of those periods of African euphoria, in which European politicians on their travels make all sorts of promises that they cannot or will not fulfil. However, Africa must make the best of it, because, apart from Cotonou, which has merely updated Lomé, sub-Saharan Africa has not benefited from major new initiatives for a considerable time.
	There is no point in rehearsing the suffering in Africa, because the media already do that, feasting on disaster and telling us little of the positive changes, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme, has just said. After visits to Sudan, Kenya and Uganda, I remain optimistic, although I do not measure progress as I know that statisticians and evaluators are taught to do. As my noble friend Lord Bhatia said, there have been so many failed European ventures in Africa that it is hard, even now with debt relief and poverty reduction strategies replacing structural adjustment programmes, to assess truly indigenous development policies.
	I start from the premise that the World Bank and multilateral agencies are beginning to get it right, although that is still highly contentious given the way in which they have applied conditionality. We are told that there is a new multilateralism in the air in the wake of September 11th. Democracy, good governance, justice and human rights—whatever they mean—are fine principles that we can all agree on, and it is encouraging that so many countries pay lip service to them, because there is at least a common language.
	However, I am cautious, because I do not believe that democracy works very well anywhere, including in this Palace of Westminster. Officially we have dropped the Westminster model, but there is still a wide and quite false perception in our country that we are right and others are wrong. The Athenians probably had the same misconception. Every society operates a hybrid pattern of government and we are not entitled, even through the Commonwealth, to preach the gospel of citizenship. As it happens, for various reasons, countries such as Uganda still apply some Westminster principles, but they have all been fortunately adapted to their own particular case.
	I am more concerned with the impact of democratic institutions on the local population, which is usually very marginal. Civil society is the buzz phrase, but decisions are still taken by multinational companies, the United Nations, the larger aid organisations and local entrepreneurs. That is why I am suspicious of business in Africa; it often makes central government irrelevant. Here I declare a prejudice, having represented some of the smaller aid agencies in Africa. The best kind of democracy that I have seen is through the more accountable smaller aid agencies. It has very little to do with central government. Typically, the local NGO works alongside local government and traditional leadership. Naturally, that is why external governments like to support small-scale development. However, they are also obliged to support governments and national bodies that—they hope—can end conflicts, promote democracy and reduce corruption.
	Non-governmental organisations can do that at the national level in only a few countries, of which Uganda is one. It is an interesting example of a country that has eschewed conventional multi-party democracy, although that has also been a disguise for a fairly ruthless national political movement. Human rights are certainly not universal.
	On the other hand, having attended the Ugandan Parliament, I was impressed by the maturity and high standard of debate, which can genuinely reflect local concerns. Whatever the propriety of the model, Ugandans are thriving on political stability and a traditional emphasis on education, which has ensured on the whole that the rural areas, although desperately poor, are not neglected.
	South Africa is a more familiar model. I well remember standing in line in a Johannesburg suburb on that historic day in April 1994 when millions turned out to vote. The vote is still regarded as the universal form of democracy, yet it is also the occasion when mandates are handed over to demagogues and tyrants, often for years—not forgetting our own MPs, who deceive voters or change sides to suit their own purposes and purses. Elections are also the time when the people are cheated, as they are being defrauded in Zimbabwe today. The poorest countries are the most vulnerable to fraud and corruption. Electoral commissions in the most deprived countries, such as Sierra Leone, have difficulty even financing the process of registration. In South Africa, the NGOs played an active part in voter education to ensure a successful election; very few other countries have attracted the same support. Will the noble Baroness tell us how DfID is contributing to political education in Africa and election-holding in countries such as Sierra Leone?
	The other important strand of the debate is sustainable development. Here, paradoxically, I shall concentrate on countries in conflict. Hardly any country in Africa is free of conflict. Within the often artificial national borders, people have to get used to the coexistence of war and peace. A new school of political theory has sprung up around the idea of conflict resolution and the role of development programmes and human rights in the search for peace and stable government.
	Eighteen months ago I was in Sudan. There can hardly be a country in Africa more torn apart, except perhaps Angola or Sierra Leone. Our perception is that whole tracts of Sudan have been taken over by local militia and proxy armies operating outside the rule of law, yet a sophisticated and settled population is to be found in most of the country, with many examples of democracy at work. Again, my prejudice is for the NGOs and Church-backed groups seeking reconciliation in both North and South. I believe that in the North the courts uphold the law through pressure from below as well as from above. That is a strong sign of democratic health, despite what is often said about breaches of human rights in Sudan.
	The same can be said of the South, where again there is faction fighting over vast areas, but in many of those areas of the country the legal system has broken down and education is all but destroyed for lack of infrastructure. I am now speaking at a more local political level, mindful of the recent return of the Secretary of State after her first visit. I contend that even in the most helpless societies, such as Rwanda, modest contributions to local government, legal and democratic institutions can restore order and stability and prepare the country for a true return to normality and, by that route, to what is called sustainable development. It can bring confidence back to a community that has suffered for a generation or more. SOS Sahel, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, is one of the practitioners of the skills of rural development and conflict resolution.
	I hope that DfID will think seriously about its role alongside a reformed European Development Fund in fostering peace through sustainable development in the whole of Africa. In Sudan, several NGOs are active in reviving the legal system and education in parts of the community still regarded by DfID as no-go areas. Peace talks are taking place in lush Nairobi hotels, contrasting with the poverty of Sudan. We hope that the IGAD process will now yield results.
	The Department for International Development is already supporting some initiatives such as reconciliation between ethnic groups. Could the Government not move one step further and support grassroots development and civic education to bring encouragement to those already engaged in those projects? Women who have watched their husbands and sons die in conflict are often the most active partners in development. However, as in neighbouring Uganda, many community groups are seriously under-funded. I look forward to the Minister's reaction.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for introducing a most important debate that I am sure will help to inform the Government's immediate policies and the ones that they will present at the end of August, at the world summit on sustainable development. However, as the Prime Minister so eloquently reminded us, many of the issues that we are discussing have such global consequences that they truly are the responsibility of governments, industry and individuals around the world.
	Many countries of sub-Saharan Africa, from Nigeria to South Africa and from Mozambique to Angola, have had dreadful recent experiences of poverty, conflict, environmental degradation, natural disasters and threats to democracy. However, there are encouraging signs of profound changes in attitude and the beginning of action programmes both by governments and by the international governmental and business community. There is evidence that those of Africa's more far-sighted leaders in open, participatory societies are moving to decelerate the recent downward spiral into poverty and violence. They and the international institutions, as well as the proposers of this debate, have recognised that the only way of progressing the well-being of people everywhere is to proceed on a broad front with democracy, socio-economic development and security on the one hand, and, on the other, a healthy population with a sustainable economy and environment over—as the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, reminded us—the long term.
	There is now—if there was not before—a great consensus on those interconnected goals, especially that of sustainability, which was the great idea that emerged from the 1992 United Nations environmental conference at Rio. I should like to describe the encouraging organisational and practical steps that certain African countries are taking in those directions.
	The Millennium Partnership for the African Recovery Programme was established in early 2001 by Presidents Mbeki of South Africa, Bouteflika of Algeria and Obasanjo of Nigeria. This intergovernmental initiative emerged from an earlier African Renaissance process but underwent several changes in the course of the past year, eventually emerging by the end of the year as the New Partnership for Africa's Development—NePAD—which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham.
	NePAD carries forward the spirit of the document issued for the Organisation of African Unity summit held in July 2001. The document states:
	"This new African initiative is a pledge by African leaders, based on a common vision and a firm and shared conviction, that they have a pressing duty to eradicate poverty and to place their countries, both individually and collectively, on a path of sustainable growth and development, and at the same time to participate actively in the world economy and body politic. The Programme is anchored on the determination of Africans to extricate themselves and the continent from the malaise of underdevelopment and exclusion in a globalising world".
	As President Mbeki has asserted, NePAD and the African Union are "the ways and means" chosen for carrying Africa forward into the 21st century. As the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, reminded us, these strategic initiatives need to be built on specific actions and involve Africans and the external community. One initiative, termed the African Process, was adopted by Ministers at the Cape Town conference on development and protection of the marine environment in sub-Saharan Africa, held in 1998 as a result of an initiative by a non-governmental organisation called ACOPS—the Advisory Committee for Protection of the Sea—which was founded 50 years ago by the noble Lord Lord Callaghan, and which I now have the honour to chair. I declare that as my interest.
	That initiative has led on to projects to safeguard and remediate the environment in the marine and coastal regions that are of such strategic importance to these countries. National teams of experts building upon information and databases are making a comprehensive assessment of, for example, threatened sensitive habitats and the currently inadequate levels of regulatory frameworks. Scientists and socio-economic experts participate in that process. That work also leads to project proposals and prospective business partners.
	Sadly, this process has had almost no coverage in the international media, which tend to focus exclusively on Africa's difficulties. This initiative is very much African driven and African led and involves both local and national concerns of Africans, the donor communities and the private sector. The proposals will be tabled at the upcoming partnership conference. It was decided at the July OAU summit in Lusaka that the conference should be held in conjunction with the world summit on sustainable development. It is the type of practical project to which the noble Lord, Lord Holme, referred. It will also be held at the level of heads of state. Interestingly, the development was spearheaded by Minister Okopido of Nigeria, last year, when he gave an address in the House of Lords at the James Callaghan Lecture.
	Surely that encouraging development should be supported by all those interested in Africa's welfare. I am hopeful that the Government will assist in every way they can.
	Some of the factors that militate against sustainable development are the result of natural causes, especially natural disasters and desertification, as we have seen in Africa with the Mozambique floods, droughts in Sudan and Ethiopia, and recently the volcano in the Congo. However, their damaging effects can be considerably reduced by organisation, funding and the application of science, technology and agriculture. The critical effect of natural disasters on international development was properly recognised in the International Development Bill which we recently considered. So it is essential that that element is emphasised in the work of the world summit. Regrettably, it is not in any of the documentation that I have seen so far.
	Perhaps as part of that summit, even with quite limited resources, the Government could do a great deal more to make improvements through more training, provision of technical assistance, working to ensure that environmental data are exchanged and providing resources to enable communities to monitor and care for their environment. Your Lordships might be intrigued to know that, after the wars in Rwanda, many of the rain gauges were used as cooking pots and all the other equipment disappeared. Consequently, when the meteorologists came to work at Kigali airport, there was little that they could do. That is a common occurrence in Africa.
	Equally, in the Mozambique floods, information on river levels upstream in Zambia and Zimbabwe was not communicated. Indeed, there is still no standard international arrangement for the exchange of such data. Getting such environmental arrangements right is as important as anything else in creating sustainable communities.
	Another point is the role of the business community. The insurance industry in the developed world is increasingly taking a role in helping the poorest countries insure themselves against the worst natural disasters. The recently formed Commonwealth Management Disaster Agency should be able to contribute the insurance resources of the City of London to help. As I said, that is an example of the business contribution, and it is a totally new approach.
	Desertification remains a great scourge in Africa. DfID is certainly working hard to focus on the problem, providing technical assistance and focusing on the poorest communities. Nevertheless, one must ask where is the financial assistance to these countries from Saudi Arabia and the other oil-rich countries that urged the creation of the desertification convention in 1992, in part because they said that they did not want to contribute to the international climate change activities. I believe that the Government should be pressing them strongly on that point.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for bringing this topic to the House for debate today.
	The EU is one of the world's biggest aid donors. The annual aid disbursement of about £5 billion per annum is enough to bring quality education to children in much of sub-Saharan Africa. A programme focused on such a clear target could make the EU the best aid donor in the world. Sadly, the politics and self-interest of EU members mean that it is one of the least timely and effective donors. More than one third of the EU's external development aid budget goes not to the poorest, but to mid-level countries. According to the report, The Reality of Aid 2000, billions of euros—4 billion ecu of the amount committed for aid between 1990 and 1994—remain unspent.
	The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, rightly broadens this debate to include not only Brussels but each and every one of the EU member states. If each of them met the targets agreed at the world summit for social development in 1995 for contributions to basic social services, well over £1.5 billion would be released in development aid for access to health, education and water. In justice, sub-Saharan Africa, as the region with the world's lowest GNP, would surely benefit most. I ask your Lordships to think of the numbers of children whose lives could be saved, futures secured and potential realised by the wise disbursement of that level of development aid.
	I must declare an interest here as chairman of Plan International UK. Plan is a child focused development agency receiving and using contributions from over 100,000 people in the UK and three-quarters of a million in Europe to help the world's poorest families make a real difference to the lives of their children. Since the charity started 60 years ago to help children orphaned in the Spanish Civil War, Plan has learnt a lot about sustainable development and promoting democracy. We work, through local staff, with poor communities in 43 developing countries including sub-Saharan Africa.
	We work at grassroots level in villages with poor communities. We have learnt that sustainable development is based on participation, education and collaboration. A fundamental principle of our work is real and meaningful participation of the poor in the activities that are meant to assist them.
	The poor and marginalised traditionally have no voice, no information, no say in what happens to them. Yet visiting poor communities with Plan, I have seen women who appear to have nothing saving a few shillings at a time in a credit scheme . Eventually they are able to take out a loan for the cow, the sewing machine, the market stall which makes the difference between their children eating or going hungry.
	Women learn the skills of managing a village bank or credit union and start to control their future. We have learnt from these women that encouraging long-term sustainable financial institutions in poor areas is one way to help families to pull themselves out of poverty. Throughout the world we see participation in action; for example, the Msingi Bora project in Kenya is engaging young teenage girls, their parents and teachers, in breaking down gender stereotyping and opening new careers for girls.
	In my field visits I have also seen a hunger for education, evidenced by the sacrifices that families make to pay for school uniform, fees and a few books to put a child through school. Although the Convention on the Rights of the Child states that every child has a right to primary education, in sub-Saharan Africa four out of 10 currently do not go to school; their families are too poor, or school is not available. UNICEF 2001 statistics show that world-wide only 2 per cent of development aid is spent on basic education. Ensuring that every child gets an education is not difficult, it just requires money and, most importantly, political will to make the most effective and targeted use of resources.
	In Sierra Leone our priority, (because it is the priority of the communities with which we work), is education. Plan is providing the raw materials so communities can rebuild their schools. In those schools, side by side with normal lessons, the local pikine to pikine (pikine means child) organisation is teaching children about health and sanitation and our partners in the Federation of African Women Educators are counselling children who have been traumatised and abused during the war. Education can flourish even among the traumatised and terrified children of a civil war. We know that educating and informing today's children in Sierra Leone is essential to the economic growth and development of the country in the future.
	Achieving lasting change requires the full co-operation of everyone in a country—government, civil society, faith groups, the private sector and for us most importantly the children, women and men in grassroots communities.
	Over the past 15 years we have seen the progress that many communities in sub-Saharan Africa have made eroded by HIV/AIDS. There are now 8 million AIDS orphans in the region. The Hope for African Children Initiative helps communities to care for their orphans. It harnesses the effort of several international NGOs, women's groups, the private sector (the pilot scheme was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation), religious leaders and professionals such as doctors and nurses. Parents are encouraged to go for voluntary testing; their lives are prolonged through treatment for opportunistic diseases such as pneumonia and they and their families are counselled and encouraged to make wills to provide for the children. After the parents' death, the children receive not only counselling from community volunteers but their carers receive practical help with school fees and vocational training is available so that the children can earn a living.
	There are many examples of successful sustainable development. The noble Lord also asks about democracy. A key plank of a democracy is fostering open dialogue. In Plan we start with the children and throughout Africa there are children's radio programmes which bring the concerns of youth to the attention of adults and politicians. So in West Africa children in a village will work with a production team for one week to produce a lively radio programme on an issue that matters to them—why teachers do not turn up for school, or why adults hit children, or whether teenagers should have confidential visits to the health worker. The programme is then broadcast throughout the area.
	I have given just a few small examples of how the money from private citizens in EU member states is making a real difference to the lives of children in sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainable development is not rocket science. We know that it can be achieved. We have seen it. We have all also seen the effect of the failure of democracy and development, the disintegration of the state and with it the hope for the children's future.
	I ask the Minister here today what the UK Government are doing to make the EU and member states a more effective champion of democracy and development and a more effective aid donor. I know through Plan supporters that among citizens of the EU there is strong support for the EU becoming the best and most effective aid donor in the world.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire for introducing the debate as he did. By this time of the evening most of the thunder has been stolen, and extremely well stolen, by some fine speeches from noble Lords who know a great deal about the subject in hand.
	Therefore, I should like to confine myself to two or three issues. The first is a slightly tentative one, because one of the themes that we have heard repeatedly urged tonight is the need for co-operation, cohesion and common programmes, particularly within the European Union. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, talked of a coherent and cohesive master plan. His was a masterly speech, but I hope that I may question whether a coherent and cohesive master plan is in fact what is needed.
	It is a question of fine judgment as to precisely how far one tries to co-ordinate or cohere policies, whether within the EU or elsewhere. Co-ordination can easily become inflexibility and coherence can be prescriptive. Common objectives can too easily become narrow and exclusive and harmonisation can lead to a lack of diversity and experimentation. I raise these points not in any way to take away from the need for more focus, more co-operation and more sharing of experiences to ensure that there is no unnecessary overlap or black holes in the provision that we bring to this enormous continent, with its stupendous problems.
	I should like to take up a point that the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, made, I thought very effectively, which concerns the importance of self-help in all this. It is a truism and yet it is easily forgotten. It is worth remembering that self-help is no less important here in the policies that we bring to our own problems of poverty and exclusion. I remind the House that the one theme above all others that comes out of the 18 members of the policy action team set up by the present Government to look at social exclusion is the need to inculcate self-help. Of course, that is frustrating if you want to leap in and help, because so often we think that we can do things for others and that we can provide this and that. We consider that we can provide expertise, plant, equipment and money, but in the medium to long term that is useless unless those whom we seek to help learn to do things for themselves.
	The development of civil society and democracy in parts of the world which have never known those things, at least in the way we conceive them, is intensely difficult. I suggest that what we have done hitherto has in many ways been almost a problem for such evolution. It is not as if the countries themselves do not have their own traditions. I refer to tribalism, with powerful chiefs and a general culture that does not sit easily with the new culture of democracy.
	I commend the Government, as many other noble Lords have done, and in particular Clare Short, the Secretary of State. Hers has been a particularly vigorous and committed espousal of the needs of development in that continent and everywhere else. I am very impressed by much of DfID's work. It does that in partnership with the NGOs, both great and small, of which there are very many. We will not forget that the partnership between government and NGOs is extensive because it has to take into account many other bodies, including international bodies and the EU and its various organisms. It also has to take into account the states in which we are seeking to render assistance, groups within the state, many of which are against the state concerned, donor constituencies and others. I am sure that the issue of self-help is predominant and should remain so in all our attempts to alleviate the woes of the third world.
	I commend an exemplar project; namely, the Amani project, which is funded by DfID and run by the charity International Alert, with which I must admit professional connections. That project has run for only two years but it is already making real headway. One way in which it does that is through its absolute determination to eliminate all western personnel within a relatively short period; that involves 100 per cent Africanisation. Its approach is broadly about encouraging mutual support between and emulation of the parliamentarians in and between six countries. Those countries are Uganda, Zambia, Tanzania, Burundi, Rwanda and Kenya.
	The peace-building and confidence-raising that the Amani project is designed to assist extend to working within and between Parliaments and their groups of MPs. That involves best practice and networking and the development of common themes and concerns. The practical fruit of what has already been done is the creation of national chapters in those six countries and the development of an executive committee across them.
	I turn to the example of the Tanzanian elections, which caused uproar in Zanzibar and Pemba. A joint team of parliamentarians was produced from the six members of the Amani project. Its negotiations with the Tanzanian Government led to the return of most of those who became refugees in the wake of the violence at the beginning of last year. I commend that project, which I am sure represents the way in which we all want to encourage the Government and the NGOs.
	Finally, I want to quote an e-mail that I received yesterday from somebody who is working in one of the most difficult situations in Africa. He said that the UK was,
	"supporting generously Rwanda and Uganda in economic and defence terms, even if the latter is poorly documented. These two countries are between them occupying half of neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo and plundering the immense wealth of this country while exploiting the local labour forces and promoting war and divisions. This issue is highly sensitive and few NGOs . . . dare raise it for fear of losing sources of funding from the British government".
	I close on that note, not to be pessimistic but to point out that there is a high degree of sensitivity among NGOs in some of the other work that the British Government undertake—or do not undertake.

Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for introducing this debate at a particularly opportune time—ahead of the presidential elections in Zimbabwe and the Earth Summit in Johannesburg in August.
	Last year, I initiated a similar debate on the political, social and economic challenges facing Southern Africa. For that reason, I was particularly pleased that this debate focuses more on "concerted international action", which is aimed in particular at EU member states, to promote democracy and sustainable development in the region.
	I want to focus my remarks, as many noble Lords have done, on current developments in Zimbabwe and South Africa, and to make brief reference to what has been happening in Angola and Mozambique. I do not want to regurgitate the speech that I made during our debate on Zimbabwe which was initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. I want to give my personal view—I stress that it is personal—of how events will unfold in Zimbabwe over the next few months.
	It is generally accepted that despite the international calls for free and fair presidential elections in Zimbabwe in March, as well as for international monitors and respect for the rule of law, the elections on 9th and 10th March will be a non-event. I use that phrase because when I spoke to the editor of the Sunday Independent in South Africa today, he used it. The elections will certainly not be free or fair, and President Mugabe will be re-elected. Moreover, there is no doubt that the Abuja Agreement is totally dead. I am also highly sceptical as to the likelihood of the Commonwealth Action Group, which is meeting today, getting any agreement to suspend Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth. Had CHOGM been able to meet, as was originally planned, in October of last year, the Commonwealth would possibly have had more muscle to suspend Zimbabwe if there were not free and fair elections. Due to the events of September 11th last year, CHOGM will be reconvening on only 2nd and 3rd March, which gives little time to take decisive action against Zimbabwe.
	So, quo vadis Zimbabwe post 10th March, when Robert Mugabe will be re-elected? It seems inevitable that the country will collapse into a state of civil war. That might be a draconian view, but there is a very real risk that the peaceful stance of the MDF and the patience of the Zimbabwean people will come to breaking point.
	I have always contended that there should be African solutions to African problems. To that end, the only real chance of a breakthrough in the deteriorating situation in that country is for South Africa and SADC to exert more pressure for change with firm timetables and deadlines. I hope furthermore that the international community will press ahead with smart sanctions against Robert Mugabe and ZANU-PF. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
	Last night, President Thabo Mbeki, who I understand is in daily contact with Robert Mugabe, called an emergency meeting with business leaders, trade union leaders and church leaders in South Africa to discuss a united approach to bring pressure to bear on Mr Mugabe. Clearly, South Africa is concerned not just with the consequential impact over the entire region of the political and economic instability of Zimbabwe, but also with the burgeoning numbers of migrant labourers who are flooding through the borders into South Africa. It may be too late, but there is no doubt that President Thabo Mbeki has taken a far more pro-active stance over the past few months both in his capacity as President of South Africa and through SADC.
	Among the ongoing revelations of human rights violations and the increasingly dire economic downward spiral in Zimbabwe, I was heartened to hear the speech of Eddison Zvogbo—it was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker—who heads the Zimbabwean Government's legal committee when he openly challenged the proposed media Bill, and I believe that it is worth reiterating the words that he used. He said:
	"This is the most calculated and determined assault on the nation's constitutional right to free expression since independence 22 years ago".
	He also went on to say that the Bill was in breach of 20 clauses of the Zimbabwean constitution. That is a very positive development.
	I now want to turn briefly to the current situation in South Africa and elaborate on some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. When Thabo Mbeki took over from President Nelson Mandela, expectations were high that he would expedite the reform programme outlined in the reconstruction and development programme. While he has, to a large degree, achieved his targets of improved water distribution and greater access to education and electricity, as well as improved healthcare and the provision of more housing for the less privileged population, his greatest challenges and problems remain the stagnant economic growth rate and the AIDS pandemic, which is not only a health crisis but also a development crisis.
	With unemployment at over 30 per cent and a serious poverty crisis, particularly in rural areas, compounded by the lack of affordable AIDS treatment drugs, the country is increasingly dependent on foreign inward investment as well as the provision of more affordable anti-retroviral drugs. NGOs have certainly played a pivotal role in alleviating that crisis. Can the Minister elaborate on the new Africa trade and poverty initiative in sub-Saharan Africa and on how effective it has been in strengthening the ability of African countries to negotiate effectively with international bodies such as the European Union and the World Trade Organisation? In particular, I want to give credit to the DfID report of March last year which outlined the department's international development targets for sub-Saharan Africa, including the reduction and prevention of conflict in the region.
	Finally, I am very concerned by the apparent stalemate in Angola, which is, by all accounts, teetering back into civil war with Jonas Savimbi regrouping and President dos Santos showing little interest in the promotion of multi-party democracy. In replying, can the Minister elaborate on what progress Her Majesty's Government are making in promoting multi-party democracy in Angola, as well as saying what action has been taken to remove the many millions of landmines in the region?
	My time is almost up. While I reiterate my belief that African solutions need to be found for African problems, the international community has a pivotal role to play in the region. I support wholeheartedly the call by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, when he said that European Union member states should have no alternative but to engage in the region.

Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, has set the House a challenging task in putting forward such a broad-based title for the debate. There is a huge number of subjects to talk about in terms of democracy and sustainable development in sub-Saharan Africa, and we have heard a very great spread. However, I make no apologies whatever for concentrating, as other noble Lords have done, on the issue of Zimbabwe. This debate is being held at an extraordinarily timely moment. There are powerful reasons why we should continue to apply all the pressure that we can in this House and in other fora to bring this issue to the forefront of international consciousness.
	Zimbabwe is a very important country in the sub-Saharan region. It should be a great and prosperous country. It has been that in the past and I am sure that it will become so again. But it has been held back deliberately by one very small interested party for its own personal gain. We, the international community, can certainly make a difference. Zimbabwe is not beyond hope by any means. My personal belief is optimistic that before long we shall see Zimbabwe return to the great country that it once was.
	However, we are faced with an extraordinarily dangerous time ahead. In the debate that we held in December, we heard a great deal of detailed information from noble Lords about the horrors that have been committed by the ZANU-PF regime. Like the noble Lord, Lord St John, I have no wish to go over those once more. They have been well documented, not least in the Physicians for Human Rights document, to which my noble friend Lord Elton referred.
	Reference has also been made to a recent meeting of the Zimbabwe Democracy Trust, with leading speakers travelling from Zimbabwe to address parliamentarians and other interested parties about the news straight from the heart of that country. We were told very clearly that a low-intensity conflict is already under way. There is now the startling realisation that ordinary, law-abiding people are bracing themselves for an outbreak of mass violence if the will of the people to determine their leader is frustrated by illegal action at the election. The noble Lord, Lord St John, said that he believed that the country was on the brink of civil war. I find it difficult to argue against that proposition. To have heard from the head of the armed forces in that country that his forces would not recognise any victor other than ZANU-PF is a chilling indication of what lies ahead.
	My firm belief is that at this very late stage only stark choices are left. We know that there has been reluctance in some quarters overtly to criticise the leadership of Zimbabwe, which has been so closely associated with the African independence struggle. We know that some western developed countries have also steered shy of criticism of the ZANU regime, fearing being branded as meddling in internal African affairs.
	But surely all right-minded parties now realise that this issue is not about white farmers, land redistribution, African self-determination or former colonial powers; it is about the terrifying lengths to which one party will go to risk the very destruction of its country in order to retain power. We cannot stand by helplessly.
	The Commonwealth is clearly an important organisation in binding countries together with a common thread. But at the centre of that organisation must lie respect for human rights and democracy. Surely the Commonwealth must now take firm action to indicate that it will not tolerate a member which flagrantly violates those very basic freedoms. If it is not adherence to those common values which binds together the Commonwealth, what is the point of that organisation?
	It is my belief that if the Commonwealth fails at this hurdle there could not be a clearer-cut example of flagrant disregard for democracy and human rights, and, to my mind, that organisation would be severely weakened. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, will be able to update us as to what happened at today's meeting. My initial understanding is that no decisive action was taken but that there were merely indications of some potential action in the future. That action was not specified.
	I certainly welcome the recent action taken by the European Union and, indeed, the role which the UK has taken in that body to impose a deadline for the acceptance of international monitors. I, too, caution against watering down that requirement. We must also bear in mind that very many people would say that it would now be impossible for free and fair elections to take place in Zimbabwe, whatever international action was to take place. While there would be a very powerful argument for saying that, I continue to believe that we should take whatever action we can on an international basis to ensure as far as possible the best chance of the elections being as free as they might be.
	To my mind, there is no doubt that historic empty threats have devalued the currency. If there is one point that I wish to leave with your Lordships it is that the focus must now be on making it absolutely clear and beyond any doubt that the international community will not recognise as legitimate, nor will it tolerate, any government who seize their mandate by force. Furthermore, punitive action will certainly be taken in the form of targeted sanctions, and the target would be ZANU-PF leaders.
	Surely experience has shown us that the ZANU regime is not overly concerned with its international reputation, nor with the health and prosperity of its subjects. However, it does understand restrictions on personal freedoms and it has plenty of experience in that field.
	If we fail to stand firm, we shall be guilty of complicity with the outrageous attacks on human rights which are now being perpetrated. Surely we must give a sense of support to every Zimbabwean in the bush, villages, towns and cities that they have not been abandoned.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for initiating tonight's debate. I declare an interest in that I visited Angola last September. That visit was organised by UNICEF.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, drew attention to the fact that 30 per cent of Angolan children die before the age of five. I would add that 55 per cent of five year-olds grow to only 70 per cent of their normal size. They have been stunted due to malnourishment. Armed conflict within that country has continued almost unabated for 40 years. The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, referred to the fact that many of the roads are so heavily mined that food and other supplies to much of the interior have to be transported by air at vast expense.
	Angola is a petro-diamond state. It is the largest supplier of oil to the United States. Its reserves of diamonds rival those of Botswana, and may well exceed them. Yet hitherto that mineral wealth has been largely used to fund civil strife. In such a context, it is imperative that the international community works in concert to promote democracy and sustainable development in Angola. There are foundations upon which we can build. Some areas—the City of Lubango in Huila Province and the whole of Namib Province, for example— relatively are prospering. The governor of the Central Bank has brought down inflation from triple to double figures. It is hoped to reduce the figure to below 10 per cent this year. International financial institutions have an important role in promoting that economic success.
	The United States has made considerable efforts to cultivate its relationship with Angola. President dos Santos was due to meet with President Bush last September. That meeting was postponed following that month's terrible events. Angolans are resilient. Their civil society is strong and growing stronger. The churches reach out into rebel-held areas to which even the NGOs cannot gain access. Fresh voices are making themselves heard. New perspectives are forcing themselves into mainstream public discourse. The Government of Angola are increasingly not having it all their own way. President dos Santos is due to stand down this year. That may be an opportunity for positive change. While democratic elections have not been held since the early nineties, some commentators believe that the prospects for peace and elections are improving. Outside investors in Angola put continual pressure on the government to become more transparent and, in particular, to make plain the final destination of their oil revenues.
	There are hard questions to put to the Government of Angola. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, enumerated several. Why does much of the population of the capital, Luanda, pay 40 per cent of its income for clean water? But hard questions cannot be expected to reach receptive ears unless the international community is prepared to prove its long-term commitment to Angola. Therefore, it is welcome that Her Majesty's Government are in continuing dialogue with the Government of Angola. Visits from Ministers and senior parliamentarians seem to be fairly regular in the UK. Recently, Dr Sozo, majority leader of the Angolan Parliament, visited the UK Parliament and spoke of his country's work on producing a new constitution. The Angolan Government are interested in our success in Northern Ireland and in what they may learn from that to help resolve their internal conflict.
	They wish to develop special trading relationships with the UK and appear interested in membership of the Commonwealth. That is the kind of foundation on which the international community and the UK may be able to build. Development assistance is a fundamental part of the rebuilding process and should be added to the current humanitarian aid. The situation in Angola is one of continuing crisis, but past and present ambassadors from the UK in Luanda have strongly urged investment in areas of stability within Angola, such as Lubango in Huila Province, and Namib Province. Those areas in the south and south-west of the country are some of the best watered in Africa. They have the potential to provide a thriving agricultural and fishing industry. They could provide a model for the people and government of Angola and demonstrate that there is a workable and attractive alternative to civil war and to extremes of wealth and poverty.
	Development assistance to such regions would be immensely valuable. Such assistance could be channelled to church organisations and NGOs to ensure its effectiveness. I would ask the Minister whether such proposals are under consideration in this country and whether they are likely to be forthcoming from the European Union. The Government are already taking steps to nurture good relations with the progressive elements within Angola. However, the Government's resources are limited. Most especially, the time of Ministers is a scarce commodity. Therefore, might back-bench parliamentarians across the European Union have a greater role to play in developing the essential long-term relationships with the progressive elements in Angola?
	On my visit I was most struck by the sense of isolation and, on occasions, abandonment that the people within Angola experience. I hope that your Lordships may contemplate visiting Angola, if you have not already done so, perhaps under the aegis of the Inter-Parliamentary Union or the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and perhaps think of encouraging our colleagues in this country and across Europe to undertake such visits. There is much good work being done there which deserves and needs encouragement. The churches and NGOs, in particular, do phenomenal work with street children. They are helped, for instance, to build their own homes, which they then take possession of. We can learn a great deal from the resilience and resourcefulness of the Angolan people. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, this has been an extremely wide-ranging debate. Indeed, when we drafted the topic for debate it was intended to be as wide-ranging as possible. However, I apologise to the Minister as this debate will perhaps tax her encyclopaedic knowledge of the African continent in the extreme. I shall not give the Minister 100 questions to answer, as I usually do. I have just three questions with which I shall end. I realise that she may not be able to answer them tonight. However, I would be grateful if she could write to me.
	I should like to focus on three issues: good governance, problems of conflict, and international aid. In debates such as this, it is our tendency to count DfID as almost omnipotent in its ability to deal with intractable problems. However, having seen the process of development of DfID's policies over the years, one aspect which I believe will lead to sustainable development in Africa is the concept of good governance. Good governance is the cornerstone on which stable democracies can be based. However, one of the problems in Africa is that an association between democracy and government is too closely made.
	An issue which I have often raised in your Lordships' House is that government is not the only aspect of democracy. Indeed, one of the reasons that e-mail addresses to the House of Commons and the House of Lords include the word "parliament" and not "dot.gov" is because Parliament includes opposition and the Government.
	An interesting piece of graffiti that was spray-canned on to the road during the May Day disturbances a couple of years ago stated that, "It doesn't matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in". That is one of the problems which has faced many African countries. Therefore, one of the aims of DfID—it has been undertaken in many of the policies and also in the excellent work by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy—is to build the capacity of opposition parties, not just to fight elections, but to fulfil their important function of being government in waiting. I know that we on these Benches take very seriously our role as government in waiting.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, laughed. But I seem to remember that it was not that long ago that he stood at the Dispatch Box and the Labour Party was the government in waiting.
	That is what makes stable government and is the basis of democracy. Too many problems have been based on the liberation elections that took place after independence, which led to governments which did not leave power. Indeed the "winner take all" mentality is still exhibited in some of the elections that I have monitored and in many countries that have suffered from one-party rule.
	The second matter is the issue of conflict—which many noble Lords have discussed—between states, but more commonly, civil war in the countries of Mozambique, Angola and Sierra Leone. The Government handled the recent crisis in Sierra Leone with a great deal of courage and fortitude. The way that the British Army was seen to act in Sierra Leone is a matter of pride throughout the House. It gave resolve to the UN forces in such a way that their credibility was sustained. The RUF have unfortunately not been able to move into the role of constructive democratic opposition. But its guerrilla tactics have largely—although not totally—been brought to an end. However, Sierra Leone is an interesting example of a country that is in the transition to democracy. Great perils still await it. Just changing to having elections will not solve a lot of the problems there.
	The major issue that is causing so many difficulties in Africa is the collapse into civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo. I remember the debate that took place in this House when Zaire looked on the point of collapse. Some of the worse nightmare scenarios have come to pass.
	The vacuum has sucked in other countries. Africa is unusual in that its countries rarely take part in conflicts outside their own borders. But the great wealth of the Democratic Republic of Congo, which has been mentioned by many noble Lords, has drawn in so many other countries. My noble friend Lord Avebury—who is not in his place but is on the other side of the Chamber at the moment—made an extremely educated and informed contribution to the debate tonight. I know that the Minister will heed many of the comments he made.
	One issue that should be raised is that, if sanctions are undertaken, those, especially in the Zimbabwean Government, who are directly benefiting from the pillage of Congo's resources should have their bank accounts frozen. Companies that are involved in this should be tracked down and have the full weight of the law moved against them.
	Under the issue of conflict, I want to add the issue of HIV and AIDS. In researching the issue of Africa, I came across the International Crisis Group's website. I can recommend the site to noble Lords; it is under crisisweb. Some lines caught my attention. They are:
	"HIV/AIDS must be viewed as a security crisis with the potential to affect peoples, states and the international community in a similar fashion to more traditional forms of conflict . . . HIV/AIDS is profoundly destabilising in several important ways. When prevalent in epidemic proportions, HIV/AIDS can destroy, like war, the fundamental elements of a nation: individuals, families and communities; economic and social institutions; military and police forces. In this sense, HIV/AIDS undercuts human security, harming economic and social stability and breaking down governance and social cohesion".
	I very much agree with that view. One statistic that sent chills down my spine was that by 2005 it is envisaged that there will be 100 million victims of this terrible scourge, the majority of them in sub-Saharan Africa.
	The other issue that I wanted to dwell on was that of aid. I very much support the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, in his call for a movement towards the 0.7 per cent target. We have had many debates about reaching the 0.7 per cent target. I applaud the Government's attempt to raise the aid budget. However, I was struck by a recurrent theme that we should be aiming not for the 0.7 per cent but for the actual amount of money that is spent. That has been put forward in a number of debates. I believe that we should be aiming for the 0.7 per cent because, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, if the international community went for that, vast amounts of money could be made available. That could be used specifically to deal with the problem of unsustainable debt.
	Many noble Lords have dwelt on the subject of Zimbabwe. It is an extremely sensitive subject at the moment. However, I want to put forward a point that has not been raised as strongly as it should. It is the opposition party in Zimbabwe which wants the elections to take place. It believes that it can win the election. It is important that the people of Zimbabwe are given the opportunity, which might conceivably happen, to resolve the difficulties that they have through free and fair elections. Whether the elections are free and fair, and whether we should ever use the expression free and fair is debatable. However, the international community is moving extremely slowly. I believe that the Commonwealth and the EU have a role to move strongly to bring about targeted sanctions.
	I finish on the three questions that I said that I would ask the Minister. Two of them concern Zambia. It has recently gone through the election process. There was little mention of it in the press. First, have the Government received the final report of the EU observation mission on the Zambian elections? I believe that the EU mission thinks that the interim report that it has presented is its final report. Secondly, what action do the Government intend to take regarding the accusations of irregularities in the recent presidential elections?
	The third question concerns Côte d'Ivoire where the leader of our sister party, Dr Alassane Ouattara, the former Prime Minister was banned from standing in the elections on accusations regarding the nationality of his parents and therefore himself. Can the Minister give us any indication of what action they have taken over that banning order?

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, on initiating this important debate. In my limited time, I cannot follow his wide-ranging and thought-provoking speech on southern Africa. I will concentrate, inevitably, on Zimbabwe, as the situation there is poisoning the whole region and undermining efforts to promote democracy, stability and sustainable development in sub-Saharan Africa.
	Zimbabwe is a subject about which many noble Lords, rightly, feel strongly. Like other noble Lords, I have received some distressing letters and e-mails from Zimbabwe. The year 2001 was a tough one for most Zimbabweans. The past few months have been the toughest. Rampant inflation, increased violence, politically motivated detentions, selective application of the law and the passing of unjust new laws have combined to plunge many into the depths of depression. I hope that tonight's proceedings will go some way to persuade Zimbabweans of all ages and the courageous opposition that they have our support and encouragement. Many Zimbabweans feel let down and betrayed by the international community.
	I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary has been rebuffed late in the day by the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, which decided today not to suspend Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth. That sends out the wrong message to Mugabe. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, said that incompetence, corruption and tyranny were leading to South Africa being particularly threatened. The South African Government have been slow to realise the danger. Perhaps the sinking rand, which has lost a third of its value in the past year, with the resulting drop in inward investment, coupled with the influx of Zimbabwean refugees, may be better at getting a warning through to Mr Mbeki than the British Government have been.
	The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, rightly said that African solutions were needed for African problems. The solution for Zimbabwe rests in regional action by Zimbabwe's neighbours, supported by an international coalition, demonstrating our support. In that context, what help are the Government giving to Botswana and other neighbouring countries to help cope with the hundreds of refugees fleeing from Zimbabwe each week?
	One's first reaction to the recent statements on Zimbabwe by Her Majesty's Government and the European Union is to say, "At last". What has been blindingly obvious to many of us for months—that dialogue with Mugabe is a waste of time and that he reacts to appeasement like any other dictator, by pushing his aims still harder against what he takes, rightly so far, as weakness—finally seems to have dawned in Government policy circles. Constructive engagement with the Mugabe regime has demonstrably failed and is failing. The Government's response has been—if I recall the phrase correctly—quiet diplomacy. Meanwhile, the chief justice was terrorised into resigning, and other independent judges have been ousted; newspaper editors have been arrested and tortured; criticism of Mugabe has been criminalised; and evidence mounts daily of harassment, assault, torture and murder conducted by the Mugabe regime. My noble friend Lord Elton mentioned the report by Physicians for Human Rights/Denmark. It makes for chilling reading.
	The wave of political violence has been so brutal that there is virtually no law and order in the country. My noble friends Lord Elton, Lord Blaker, Lord Goschen and Lady Park of Monmouth gave the House examples of the tyranny. I must congratulate my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth on taking on the high commissioner the other night and winning their public debate by a mile.
	The chances of free and fair elections are already extremely poor. If—I repeat—if monitors are allowed in from the EU or other international bodies, it will be essential for them to report before the voting takes place on whether they believe that the conditions for free and fair elections exist. It would be pointless, after an election has been rigged and after Mugabe has proclaimed a victory—whatever the real result—for us to wring our hands and say that the elections were not fair. By then, it will be too late. If the Government here—and the EU more widely—are to have any credibility on the issue, we must act now.
	The immediate priority is to ensure that we get the monitors into Zimbabwe, although it is already almost too late. I have two specific questions for the Minister, and I hope for answers tonight. First, can she give a clear and categoric assurance that, in the absence of monitors being in place on 3rd February, targeted sanctions will immediately be imposed? It is essential that President Mugabe be left in no doubt about that and that there be no question of any further prevarication. As my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth said, British observers must be part of any EU delegation. Secondly, what about the role of the BBC—as my noble friend Lord Blaker asked—and other British media? Has there been some agreement to exclude the BBC from election coverage? If so, that is shameful. How can that be squared with the requirement that international media be allowed to operate freely? Nothing could send a worse signal about the feebleness of the EU approach, particularly to other unacceptable regimes. I look forward to the Minister's response to those vital questions.
	If there are to be targeted sanctions, the House has a right to know how they will work, how they will be enforced and whether they will truly meet their objectives. How will the United States be involved? How will the sanctions be co-ordinated between the EU countries, the United States and, I hope, the Commonwealth? It is essential that the Mugabe regime be targeted and that any sanctions do not merely add to the misery and poverty already suffered by the long-suffering people of Zimbabwe.
	The deterioration of Zimbabwe has been allowed to proceed unchecked for too long. If Britain is meaningfully to involve itself in sub-Saharan Africa, we must do all that we can to promote democracy and long-term economic stability, as essential safeguards against tyranny, poverty and the abuse of human rights. Zimbabweans are desperately looking to the world community to do something positive that will stop the state-sponsored terrorism. We welcome the Government's recent concern over Zimbabwe, but we urge them to translate their good intentions into action.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for opening this important debate and for making a wide-ranging speech that set out the main challenges and opportunities.
	The promotion of democracy and sustainable development in Africa is a key element of the Government's policy in sub-Saharan Africa. In the time available, I am unable to do justice to the breadth of the issues raised in the debate, but I should like to address the specific issues that have been raised in the context of the Government's overall strategy of working in partnership with African countries to bring about long-term sustainable change. I should also like to take the opportunity to thank noble Lords who have made positive comments about the role of my right honourable friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development, and myself in the process.
	There is no doubt that the development challenges facing Africa are daunting. Many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Joffe, have referred to them this evening. I shall not repeat them. However, on current trends, the region is unlikely to meet any of the millennium development goals, as the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, said.
	But as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, pointed out, despite the challenges, there has been significant progress in many areas. In Sierra Leone, the government have reasserted control over the whole territory, and elections are on course for May of this year. The ceasefire in the Democratic Republic of Congo has held for nearly a year, and a start has been made in the peace process. More than 20 African countries achieved a growth rate of 4 per cent in 2001. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, is of course quite right to say that we need to see growth rates of 5 per cent and over, but I think that it is encouraging that so many countries have managed to achieve 4 per cent.
	There were successful elections in seven African countries in 2001, with peaceful changes of government in three. As President Mbeki of South Africa has said:
	"There are already signs of hope and progress. Democratic regimes that are committed to the protection of human rights, people-centred development and market-oriented economies are on the increase. African people have begun to demonstrate their refusal to accept poor economic and political leadership. These developments are, however, uneven and inadequate and need to be expedited further".
	Seeing Africa's success stories "expedited further" is at the heart of UK policy towards Africa, whether in the field of democracy, or of sustainable development more widely. We are keen to work with a range of partners to achieve this. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, will be pleased to hear that what we are seeking is a partnership. The noble Lord spoke specifically about the need for self-help.
	The nature of our partnership with African leaders and their people is fundamental. The emergence of the New Partnership for Africa's Development, NePAD, opens up fresh possibilities. NePAD is designed to place African countries on a path to sustainable growth and development. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, who spoke of the need for leadership to come from within Africa, that one of the important themes of NePAD is that it is clearly an African-led process, with a strong sense of African responsibility in responding to the continent's challenges.
	Other important features are that it concerns sound political and economic governance. That is recognised as central to Africa's development. African leaders are seeking a new type of partnership with Africa's international friends, based on shared responsibility and mutual interest.
	It is clear from many of the speeches that have been made in our debate that noble Lords think that much can be achieved if the political will is there. There is a new political will emerging among a number of African leaders at present. They are ready to engage more vigorously with the full range of Africa's problems—from conflict prevention to corruption. They want Africa to take its proper place in the international community and to access the benefits of globalisation. They want a new, more genuine partnership with us, one where Africans take primary responsibility for meeting Africa's challenges. We want to build on that new political will.
	My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has pledged to make Africa a priority for this Government. It was in that spirit that he took the lead, with other G8 leaders, at the Genoa summit last June, in welcoming what was then the New African Initiative and is now the New Partnership for Africa's Development. In the same spirit, he has emphasised, most recently in his Mansion House speech in November last year, that the anti-terrorist agenda has not deflected us. Indeed, it has reinforced our determination.
	This is an ambitious agenda, which I believe echoes the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, but we have an opportunity, and that opportunity exists now. That is because an important part of our response to NePAD is the development of the G8 Action Plan for Africa. I am closely involved in this process as the Prime Minister's personal representative, working with other G8 personal representatives and in regular dialogue with NePAD counterparts.
	The objective of the G8 Action Plan for Africa is to help to define a new way of co-operating with Africa. Its aim is to articulate on behalf of G8 countries a willingness to work together in a framework of partnership and mutual accountability to address the policy constraints that inhibit Africa's development.
	We are looking at a range of issues, such as economic growth, trade and investment. The Department for International Development has been engaged in capacity building to assist developing countries to negotiate in key fora. We have begun to see the fruits of that in, for example, the recent discussions at Doha. We are looking at peace and security, governance, health, education and knowledge; and of course we want to look at the quantity and quality of aid, and the issue of aid effectiveness.
	The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, mentioned in particular the need to endorse the 0.7 per cent target. This Government have always said that moving towards 0.7 per cent is an aim. We recognise that, given the low base from which we started in 1997, this will take some time. However, I think that it is important to recognise that UK bilateral aid for sub-Saharan Africa increased from £434 million in 1997-98 to £757 million in 2000-01. Over the same period, the proportion of DfID bilateral resources allocated to the region increased from 32 per cent to 45 per cent. We are also working hard to increase the effectiveness of what we spend.
	The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked what we are doing specifically in the area of democratisation and election support. The Department for International Development has programmes in many countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Given the time available, I shall write to the noble Earl outlining in detail some of those programmes. I should like also to assure the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that the process of working with parliamentarians remains important, not only for the work of the Department for International Development, but also for the work of the British Council, which I have seen in many of the countries that I have recently visited.
	Our approach is multilateral. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, mentioned in particular work with our EU partners and the importance of us working in partnership. The European Union, with the UK as an active member, has a vital role to play in promoting democracy and sustainable development in Africa. The central objective of the EU's Partnership Agreement with the 77 countries of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP) is to reduce and eventually to eradicate poverty, while contributing to sustainable development and to the gradual integration of ACP countries into the world economy.
	The partnership, under the Cotonou agreement, has a strong political foundation. It is underpinned by a set of core values or "essential elements": respect for human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law, whose violation can lead to the suspension of aid. Good governance is considered to be a "fundamental element" of the Cotonou agreement. The EU will make its own response to the NePAD proposals.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, asked specifically about EU aid effectiveness. Noble Lords will know that we have been at the forefront of discussions to reform the EU aid programme, to focus its efforts on poverty elimination and to make the programme more effective. I share the aspiration of the noble Baroness to make the EU the best and most effective aid donor, second, of course, only to ourselves.
	Let me turn to conflict in sub-Saharan Africa, an issue mentioned by many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Bhatia and Lord Avebury, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. Not only is conflict one of the main obstacles to reducing poverty, upholding human rights and achieving sustainable development in Africa, it is also a threat to global security.
	I have just returned from New York. Yesterday, the UN Security Council devoted its debate to conflict in Africa. We also received a briefing from the Foreign Minister of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Armed conflicts in Angola, Sudan and Somalia, where numerous peacekeeping efforts have failed, are now all but ignored. In those war-ravaged nations, millions have been condemned to despair and misery. In the Great Lakes region, a dozen African nations have, one way or another, been sucked into a series of interlocking conflicts since the mid-1990s. Many other countries are affected by or are at risk of violent conflict.
	There are some positive signs. I mentioned Sierre Leone. Hostilities between Ethiopia and Eritrea, which claimed the lives of many thousands, have also been brought to a close. Serious efforts are under way involving regional states and the United Nations to tackle the biggest challenge of all—the conflicts in the DRC and Burundi.
	We need new approaches to deal with the changing and diverse nature of violent conflict in Africa. The challenge to the international system is not just to prevent or end hostilities in conflict zones but something far greater. It needs to help to transform regional and national political economies that are conditioned by violent conflicts into healthy systems based on political participation, social and economic inclusion, and respect for human rights and the rule of law.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Park, the noble Lords, Lord St John of Bletso, Lord Astor of Hever, Lord Elton and Lord Blaker, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, all spoke powerfully about Zimbabwe. It is significant that the action called for is always action in which the British Government are already engaged. The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, said that no action has been taken until now, but I must take issue with that statement. I have tried hard to ensure that noble Lords understand the Government's approach. We have made our views clear. We have had a regular dialogue with the people of Zimbabwe—including civil society and opposition groups. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Park, to whom I have spoken about this issue on many occasions and whose advice I have welcomed, that we have been in discussion with all the key influences.
	Noble Lords find it difficult to accept, as do I, that we are dealing with a government who are not interested in upholding rights or in the international community's concerns. The Zimbabwean Government do not put the interests of their own people at the top of the agenda, which is why the approach we took has limits. However, we have taken a number of measures in response to the situation in Zimbabwe. There is a complete embargo on arms sales to Zimbabwe, a cut in non-humanitarian aid and the withdrawal of our military training team. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that we have been trying to secure peace and democracy—and we have been working consistently not only with the people of Zimbabwe but with the country's partners in the region, with the European Union, the Commonwealth and the United States to achieve both.
	The multilateral approach to Zimbabwe is the most effective. International concern is reflected in four initiatives from the European Union, the Commonwealth, the Southern African Development Community and the United States that are complementary and mutually reinforcing. At the General Affairs Council on Monday, European Union foreign ministers decided to close the Article 96 consultation and to implement targeted sanctions if the government of Zimbabwe prevent the deployment of an EU observation mission starting by 3rd February 2002 or later prevent the mission from operating effectively—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Astor, understands that point—likewise, if the government of Zimbabwe deny the international media free access to cover the election; or if there is a serious deterioration in terms of a worsening of the human rights situation or attacks on the opposition; or if the election is assessed as not being free and fair.
	As I understand it, the government of Zimbabwe do not want the BBC to cover the election and it has, to all intents and purposes, been banned. We deplore that position.
	Today, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group met, reviewed the situation in Zimbabwe, and expressed deep concern at the continued violence, political intimidation and actions against the freedom and independence of the media. I have asked for that statement to be made available in the Printed Paper Office because I am unable to read more from it now.
	My noble friend Lady Whitaker and the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, asked about Export Control Bill. That measure does not undermine the Government's ability to take account of sustainable development in the export licensing process, but enhances the state of all consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria—including those relating to sustainable development.
	The noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord St. John of Bletso, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked about Angola. We operate a two-track policy to support the existing sanctions regime against Unita as a means of pressing it towards dialogue while working on the Angolan Government to improve their humanitarian performance, tackle corruption and create genuine democratic space for possible dialogue.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about the exploitation of the DRC's natural resources. We fully supported the creation of the UN panel to investigate, and an extension of the panel's mandate so that it can continue to monitor exploitation and its links with the continuation of conflict. If the noble Lord will permit, I shall write to him about Victor Bout.
	The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked about the World Summit on Sustainable Development and my noble friend Lord Hunt spoke about a range of environmental initiatives that have received little media attention. Environmental issues are critical and our priorities for the WSSD encapsulate all three pillars of sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on Zambia.
	Time is against me. This debate has highlighted some of the serious challenges faced by Africa, but it has indicated also the level of commitment that exists in the UK and among Africa's partners more widely, to help to meet those challenges. It is a long task but Africa's leaders are showing a fresh determination to tackle it. We have rightly been among the first to welcome the new partnership and shall continue to do all that we can to build on it.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we are tight up against our three-hour limit. Very briefly, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I remind the House that we in the West are implicated in the development of Africa by our share in its corruption through off-shore tax havens. That makes the whole question of action against tax havens—many of which are under British sovereignty— extremely important.
	Finally, we should remember that Zimbabwe is not the only country of concern in Africa. Many speakers have stressed that the future of the Congo, Nigeria and so on is also very important. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers almost exactly three hours after we started.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Religious Offences Bill [HL]

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In doing so, I express my warmest thanks, first, to the Public Bill Office for its timely and effective advice on drafting; secondly, to the staff of the Library for the excellent notes they have produced; and, thirdly, to the Home Office for producing what is known as a Keeling schedule demonstrating how the Public Order Act would look if the amendments proposed in the Bill were made thereto. It was a matter of complaint during our proceedings on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill that it was extremely difficult to look backwards and forwards between that Bill and the Public Order Act. The production of the Keeling schedule is a tremendous advantage in trying to understand exactly what these proposals will do.
	As your Lordships know, the proposals in the Bill have been canvassed on many previous occasions, most recently, as I said, during the proceedings on the anti-terrorism Bill. I shall refer, first, to Clause 2—I shall explain later why I am doing it this way round—the provisions of which are identical to the provisions on incitement to religious hatred that were left out of the anti-terrorism Bill—probably not because the House was against them per se, as I judged the tone of the discussions then, but rather on the grounds that it was considered unsatisfactory to put them in a Bill dealing with the effects of the dreadful crimes of 11th September and the consequent changes that we needed to make in our legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for instance, said that there was a case but that it was inappropriate to deal with it in that way.
	I should point out—it was not a matter which received any attention during those proceedings—that in Northern Ireland provisions almost identical to these have been on the statute book since 1987. Presumably they have acted as a deterrent to religious incitement there. There is exactly the same wording as is already in Part 3 of the Public Order Act in relation to racial hatred offences and, as far as I am aware, there have been no difficulties of interpretation or of limiting freedom of expression and other of the anxieties expressed in our recent discussions.
	People in Northern Ireland are well known for expressing themselves about religion in a robust manner, and the law has not altered that. Nor is the existence of the law a matter of controversy, as the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission would confirm.
	Returning to Great Britain, the Law Commission considered this matter in 1981, when it recalled that it had first been looked at as long ago as 1965 during the framing of the Race Relations Act. The proposition in 1981 was that the words "or religious" might be added to the law against incitement to racial hatred—as in this Bill—but at that time it was not considered a significant problem. In 1985 the Law Commission again considered the matter, but observed,
	"how closely linked are the concepts of a 'racial group' . . . and membership of a group which is distinguished by . . . a common religion".
	Once again it concluded that legislating against incitement to hatred of people holding particular religious beliefs could be "a relatively simple task" on the lines now proposed.
	If it is common ground that incitement to hatred of religious groups which are not defined by ethnic origin—including Muslims and Christians—does happen, then the question is whether it has now become a real and urgent threat to society requiring legislation, which it was not when the Law Commission reported in 1985. But if it is now, then, as the Law Commission foreshadowed, the logical way of dealing with it is to follow the existing law on religious incitement in Northern Ireland and the law on racial incitement in Britain as closely as possible. It would be intolerable to have one set of provisions in Northern Ireland on religious incitement and another completely different set in the rest of the country.
	It would also be very confusing if the courts had to deal with dissimilar laws on racial and religious incitement, considering that in some cases ethnic and religious groups are one and the same. The definition of "religious hatred" follows exactly the same format as the existing definition of "racial hatred" in the Public Order Act, and the very nature of the phenomenon is identical. We are talking about hatred against a group of persons, whether they are defined by reference to their religion or race, as the case may be.
	We have discussed at some length how this proposal can be reconciled with freedom of expression. I shall not go over the ground covered by the Attorney-General in relation to the anti-terrorism Bill when he explained how his discretion would be used to sanction criminal proceedings. I merely say that I hope that his draft guidance would apply to this Bill, as it would have done on that occasion.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said that he accepted the principle that legislation in this area was desirable, as indeed did others in all quarters of the House. They felt, however, that incitement to religious hatred was important enough to be considered on its own. If that was the main reason why the House decided to remove what was then Clause 39 from the anti-terrorism Bill, and not because your Lordships considered there was no need for an offence of this kind, I hope that Clause 2 of this Bill meets the objection.
	I now turn to Clause 1 of the Bill. I am dealing with it this way round because of the statement made during discussion on the anti-terrorism Bill by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark that,
	"were the clauses regarding the incitement to religious hatred already on the statute book . . . we, from the Church of England, would view the departure of the blasphemy law with much easier hearts".—[Official Report, 10/12/01; col. 1178.]
	I believe that he was making the point, although he did not spell it out, that extreme conduct which might now be dealt with under the blasphemy law could sometimes be classified as a public order offence. But whereas blasphemy is treated as an offence only against the Christian religion, the religious incitement provisions in this Bill apply to a group from any religion or from none.
	I ought to emphasise, because it seems to be widely misunderstood, that blasphemy has a much more limited meaning in law than it has in the dictionary. There is no prohibition on speaking or publishing opinions hostile to Christianity, or on denial of the existence of God. But the existing law on blasphemy applies only to the Christian religion. Incidentally, the notion that we have a choice between abolition and extension of the present uncertain law to all religions is a non-starter. If we wanted to encourage rivalry and animosity between religions, that would be a good way to do it. It was suggested at one time by a minority in the Law Commission that a law could be framed which extended blasphemy to every other religion.
	The definition of blasphemous libel adopted by the trial judge in the case of Whitehouse v Lemon was the publication of any writing concerning God or Christ, the Christian religion, the Bible or some sacred subject using words that are scurrilous, abusive or offensive. The offence consists of attacking religious entities, not the religious group which believes in that particular set of entities. But the language used might be capable of having both effects: it could be at the same time "scurrilous, abusive or offensive" about the objects of a religion—of Christianity in the case of the existing law—and "threatening, abusive or insulting" and intended or likely to stir up hatred against the set of persons belonging to the faith which held those objects to be sacred.
	There are many examples of this in the history of anti-semitism, where extreme criticism of the Jews' denial of Christ's divinity could not be separated from incitement to hatred of the Jews as a people. Christian theologians from St John Chrysostom onwards portrayed the Jews as Christ-killers, and it was not surprising that the use of that kind of language led to the social exclusion of Jews and the pogroms of medieval Europe, as well as being a factor in the aetiology of the holocaust, as many authors have shown.
	There will be some circumstances, however, which theoretically could lead to prosecution under the blasphemy law but will no longer do so under the Public Order Act if this Bill is passed. It could hardly be said, for instance, that the poem in the Whitehouse v Lemon case was either intended to stir up religious hatred or was likely to do so, and such a case, if it occurred today, would not get to the stage of a full investigation by the police. But would a private prosecution under an 1866 statute be allowed by a judge if that case or one like it arose today? If those circumstances did ever arise, would not the Attorney-General use his power to take the case over and then offer no evidence? In 1976 there was still a great deal of homophobia, and Mary Whitehouse was a highly motivated and effective campaigner. The Gay News case should be seen as an aberration, without which we could now be looking back on 80 years without any court proceedings on blasphemy charges.
	Subsection (2) of Clause 1 repeals all the religious offences listed by the Law Commission in its 1985 report on offences against religion and public worship. I apologise for the error, as Sections 3 and 4 of the Law of Libel Amendment Act 1888 have been repealed already. It was fairly difficult to go through all those ancient statutes and pick out the parts that were still in force.
	The only provision that has been used in recent times is Section 2 of the 1860 Act, which criminalises any person who is guilty of,
	"riotous, violent or indecent behaviour",
	in a place of worship or burial ground. This was used against protesters who interrupted a service attended by members of Mr Harold Wilson's government in 1968. They were protesting against what they alleged to be Mr Wilson's support for American policy in Vietnam. It was again used in 1973—I think that that was the last occasion—when persons were convicted under that section for having performed ceremonies to raise the dead in a churchyard. I am not sure why it should be a crime to try to raise the dead in a churchyard but not in any other place.
	Our debates on these matters only a few weeks ago showed that your Lordships wanted an opportunity to examine them more thoroughly with a view to reaching well-thought-out decisions. Both religious incitement and blasphemy have been discussed on numerous occasions, but we have never had the benefit of knowing what is the sense of the faith communities and, indeed, of those who belong to no religion, who are now probably more numerous than any single religion.
	It has been suggested that we might now obtain that advice by referring the Bill to a Select Committee—a practice that has been followed sparingly over the past half century. I should welcome such an opportunity for settling these issues definitively. As there will be many differences of opinion about the detail, I hope that there will be common ground that we should now face up to the two related issues that are dealt with in the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Avebury.)

Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on introducing the Bill. He has a long and distinguished career in human rights, equality and justice. I hope that the Bill will reach the statute book so that we can perhaps bring a religious discrimination Bill to the House for your Lordships' consideration in due course.
	I am not against blasphemy laws. Indeed, I should very much like all religions and people to be protected from insults and attacks equally in law. As a Muslim, I am duty bound to respect equally Abraham, Jesus Christ, and Mohammed, peace be upon them. However, certain common law offences relating to religion and public worship are out of date and relate to only one section of our community. It is imperative that we amend our laws so that they are relevant to the multi-religious Britain of today.
	Although the Law Commission in its 1985 report concluded that the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel should be abolished without replacement, two law commissioners argued for similar legislation to that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
	I pay tribute to the Home Secretary for attempting to introduce religious hatred offences in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act. I also thank the shadow Home Secretary, Mr Oliver Letwin, for acknowledging in the other place that vulnerable communities need to be protected—especially Muslim communities in the present crisis.
	The European monitoring centre on racism and xenophobia has recently reported:
	"Prejudice and hostility against Islamic communities are prevalent in all European member states, and have often led to discrimination against Muslims and their exclusion from mainstream socio-economic activities."
	Unfortunately, we have all witnessed an increase in such prejudice in recent months.
	Since 11th September, attacks on the Muslim, Sikh and other Arab and Asian communities have increased by four times in some places. The Commission for Racial Equality reported an increase in attacks of more than 75 per cent on the Asian community in Tower Hamlets, for example. Far right racist groups openly attack the Muslim communities in the media and on their websites. There is no law to bring those people to justice. Muslim women wearing the hi'jab, Arab women in particular, have been subject to verbal abuse. Asian men and women in traditional clothes and Sikh men wearing turbans have all experienced harassment and mosques have even been fire-bombed. Racist groups have openly displayed posters and distributed leaflets inciting religious hatred in the north of England; and, sadly, even a few Asian religious groups offered support to the BNP in the hate campaign against Muslim communities.
	There has been a growing anti-Muslim sentiment in the western media. The intentional use of anti-Islam terminology has featured in the media: words like, "fundamentalism", "terrorism has been linked to Islam", "militant Muslims", "Muslim terrorist groups", "Islamic terrorists" and "Muslim warlords" have been frequently used. International terrorism became synonymous with the Islamic religion. British Muslims have been at the receiving end of religious hatred, and yet have been expected to prove their loyalty to Britain and their "Britishness" time after time.
	I have congratulated the Government on many occasions for the Derby and the Cambridge reports on religious discrimination. I joined the Labour Party 26 years ago because Labour stood for equality, fairness and justice. That is why I am proud that our Government are showing their intolerance to the incitement of religious hatred, and are leading the way for a culturally and religiously diverse but harmonious society. I feel proud to stand before audiences in Asia and the Middle-East, Europe and America, to say that British Muslims have more rights in the United Kingdom than anywhere else in the world. Yet, we are still not equal in law. Jewish and Sikh communities are protected under the Race Relations Act 1976—and rightly so—but other communities are not. That is why we must support this Bill, and also introduce religious discrimination legislation.
	The Public Order Act of 1986 has two basic requirements of an offence being classifiable as inciting hatred: first, the words must be threatening, abusive or insulting; and, secondly, the words or behaviour are intended to, or do, incite hatred. Implementation of Clause 2 of the Religious Offences Bill (formerly Clause 39 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill) are in keeping with the equality-based arguments for amendments to the law. Islam also forbids religious abuse. I speak as a British Muslim when I say that we are pleased that the matter of religion has been taken out of the anti-terrorism Bill, which, undoubtedly, would otherwise have been viewed negatively.
	Although there have been some apprehensions that, rather than being protected, British Muslims will be further persecuted under the new Bill, I feel that it is beneficial to us and other religious groups to be covered by the law against unfair discrimination. There have also been concerns that freedom of speech will be stifled, but the Religious Offences Bill refers to acts of hatred, not comedy and religious debate. This Bill will now protect all groups, unlike the previous blasphemy laws. It is also in keeping with respecting unity, diversity and equality.
	In conclusion, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who has suggested that the Bill could go to a Select Committee for further examination. I strongly support him in that aim. I wholly support the introduction of the Bill, and look forward to discussing the new religious discrimination Bill.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I do not wish the Bill to reach the statute book and nor do I accept that there is any reason why it should do so. This can obviously become an emotive subject and I shall not follow the line of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, because I am anxious to remove that element from the whole discussion.
	The Bill pre-empts extensive consultation between the three monotheist bodies and other religious bodies in England, Wales and Scotland on the issues covered in Clauses 1 and 2. That pre-emption would render wholly inappropriate the setting up of the suggested Select Committee, if the Bill were to be given a Second Reading—which, by convention, I suppose that it has to be given. It is essential that, in ecclesiastical matters, some sort of consensus should be sought and, if possible, achieved by compromise before the Bill could ever be referred to a Select Committee of this House, as is understood to be the intention—subject, of course, to the approval of this House.
	I speak only for myself, but I do so in the light of a mass of unsolicited correspondence, to which I referred during the passage of the recent Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. One ought not to tinker with the law in the area of religion without having at least sought consensus, which I had understood to be the sense of this House on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. I have said that, but for convention, I would oppose Second Reading.
	On Clause 1, if there were a consensus between the religious bodies, after consultation, to accept the recommendations of the Law Commission, so be it, but it is suggested that Section 2 of the Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860 should be retained as redrafted as constituting a religiously aggravated circumstance to be added to the offences by amendment to Section 29 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
	As for Clause 2, I am not concerned with importing emergency legislation from the Province as a precedent for legislation in this country or in Scotland or Wales. Clause 2 is a replica of the provision in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill that your Lordships rejected by a massive majority on two occasions. It is not a new provision, which we understood that the Government might wish to introduce in the light of extensive consultation. Your Lordships may well think that Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill in any event. Clauses 1 and 2 raise totally disparate, distinct and separate issues, which are in no way related. Even if Clause 1 were to commend itself, that could never justify the retention of Clause 2—or vice versa. There is a rumour of a trade-off on both clauses, so that a semblance of unity might be achieved and the aspiration of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, could be fulfilled and the whole matter could be sent to a Select Committee. If that rumour is true, I hope that your Lordships will have none of it.
	In all events, if Clause 2 were not to stand part, the Title and Clause 3 would require amendment and it would be wholly unacceptable to foreclose on a Committee stage on the Floor of this House. I stand by that to the end of my speech.
	I do not understand why the opinion of the House, expressed only six weeks ago by the composite wisdom of your Lordships on two substantial Divisions should not be respected by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and why the issue should be so soon revisited.
	If the essence of the problem is that identified in the exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, whom I see in his place, on 15th October when the Statement was made—that religious hatred is used as a cover for racial hatred—so be it. Since then, however, Section 39 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 has made provision for religiously aggravated offences which includes relevant safeguards, renders Clause 2 otiose and disposes of the argument in favour of the new offence of incitement to religious hatred. Under Section 40 of the Act, the maximum sentence for such offences is increased to seven years.
	As for the argument in favour of the new offence in Clause 2, on 15th November, the Home Affairs Committee found no evidence to support it. It found problems of compatibility with the ECHR concerning freedom of thought and speech on religious matters; the objections of all three monotheistic religions and other religious bodies; and the "cross breed" objections of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that racial hatred is not a matter of opinion protected by free speech. Today, the noble Earl has confirmed that that objection does not extend to Sections 39 and 40 which provide for an increased sentence on conviction for the relevant offences—public order, assaults, criminal damage, harassment and so forth.
	If the law as it stands were to be enforced—an issue raised on 21st November by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford—it is a wholly satisfactory regime. Clause 2 is not only pre-emptive of due consultation but wholly inapposite. Indeed, it would work much unintended mischief.

Lord Ahmed: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether he agrees that there is religious discrimination against Muslims? The British National Party has been publishing leaflets and inciting hatred against the Muslim community but there is no legislation to protect that community. How does the noble Lord suggest the authorities should deal with those matters?

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, although I have an understanding and sympathy for what he says, I decline to enter into that type of discussion tonight. I am of the opinion that if the present law were enforced as amended by Sections 39 and 40 of the 2001 Act—the noble Lord shakes his head, but I could shake my head at him; I am only answering his question to the best of my ability—it would be a wholly appropriate and effective safeguard. That is my opinion and my answer in amity.

The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I should like to take the Bill in three bites. The first is what it proposes: revival of the Government's proposals for dealing with religious hatred. The second is what it seeks to abolish: the offence of blasphemy. The third is a variety of provisions relating to disorder in churches and churchyards.
	First of all, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, it is quite clear that the issue of incitement to religious hatred will not go away. I believe that the Government were right to seek to legislate in this area, but whether they were right to try to bring in such provisions under the banner of a Bill against terrorism is another matter.
	Much of the opposition to this proposal expressed fear for the curtailment of free speech. But what is at issue is not the right of free speech; no religion ought to have anything to fear from fair scrutiny and honest debate. No, what is at issue is the abuse of free speech to incite fear, prejudice, contempt and even violence.
	The shameful history of European anti-Semitism makes the point. Jews have been abused and vilified not only for their alleged racial characteristics but also for their real or alleged religious practices, all the way from circumcision and dietary rules to stories of baby eating.
	As we have already heard, Jews, like Sikhs, are now protected by anti-racist legislation because in their cases the boundaries of race and religion are held to coincide. Not so Christians, Muslims or Buddhists. For the sake of clarity, as I think I may have been misunderstood, I shall repeat some of the things I said on, I believe, 15th October. The boundaries of Christianity and Islam do not coincide with ethnicity. These are religious communities which in principle transcend all ethnic divisions. Nevertheless—and this is the point in the situation in which we find ourselves—in particular historical and social circumstances these religions have become associated in the popular mind with particular ethnic groups.
	Islam is not an inherently Asian religion. In my city of Birmingham there are plenty of white Muslims, just as there are plenty of Asian Christians. Nevertheless, Islam is generally perceived in this country as an Asian religion. Consequently, attacks on Islam are used as a cover for incitement to hatred and even violence against people of Asian origin. Islamophobia is an issue and it is not dealt with by current anti-racist legislation.
	Leaflets circulated by the British National Party in the West Midlands illustrate the point when they present themselves as defenders—the only defenders, they say—of Christianity and urge parents to withdraw their children from religious education on the grounds that it is now a vehicle for the Islamification of so-called Christian Britain. Of course, for "Christian" read "white" and for "Islamic" read "Asian".
	Of course, if there are to be criminal sanctions against religious hatred, there must be measures to prevent their abuse, such as keeping authorisation for prosecution in the hands of the Attorney-General. The proper exercise of free speech must be protected, but not its abuse, which brings us to blasphemy. The present state of the law, which offers protection to one religion only, is plainly indefensible. The only argument lies between those who believe that all faiths should be given protection against hatred and abuse and those who believe that all faiths are fair targets for anything.
	The view of the bishops of the Church of England—and it is widely shared—is that if there is satisfactory and plainly effective legislation against religious hatred, the law against blasphemy can go. But before leaving blasphemy, it is worth noticing that what we are now talking about is the protection of the rights of groups and communities and not only of individuals. That is important in view of some of the arguments that were advanced when your Lordships discussed the human rights legislation a few years ago.
	Finally, this Bill seeks to abolish various offences relating to disturbances in churches and churchyards. Here, in place of outright abolition, the Church would want to follow the Law Commission in extending protection from Christianity to all faiths by penalising riotous, violent or indecent behaviour in any place of religious worship.
	I speak from pastoral experience when I say that such protection is sometimes needed. I find myself wondering on this point whether the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has consulted the police. I believe that they would agree with my point. This part of the Bill, whatever my comments on the rest of it, certainly needs more thought.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate the substance of this Bill, tabled, as it now is, independent of the matters that were raised in the anti-terrorism, crime and security legislation. I also welcome this opportunity to deliver my maiden speech.
	Those several sources of advice on the protocol of maiden speeches whom I consulted stressed two points. The first is that a maiden speech should be delicately short. The second is that the speech should not be controversial. I have at moments given way to the thought that perhaps I have chosen the wrong Bill if I am to meet the second of those criteria; that is, of being non-controversial. Two means, however, have occurred to me of avoiding unnecessary controversy in such sensitive—properly sensitive—matters.
	The first might find me accused of mauvaise foi—bad faith—for it appeals to the example of Shakespeare's Mark Antony, who came, as he reiterated,
	"to bury Caesar, not to praise him".
	That would not only imply an element of legalistic literalism but it would set a dangerous precedent. I shall therefore resist the temptation to refer to those who either propose or oppose the Bill as, "all, all honourable men". However, I am sure, as Mark Antony was not, that they are all, all honourable men—and, indeed, women.
	This short literary excursion may seem a self-indulgence, but it is not. It takes me to my first point. The difficulty that the clever use of words by a polemicist, an orator, a preacher and, heaven help us, these days even perhaps a religious spin doctor might pose for those who would seek clear legislation in such essentially disputable areas as religious belief and religious offence is a real difficulty and must be tackled in any adequate legislation.
	There is an alternative basis, of course, for speaking non-controversially in such sensitive contexts. That is perhaps to be found in a previous world that I inhabited. I was, in fact, a professor of the philosophy of religion at King's College, London, and now, fitfully—as other duties allow—at the University of Edinburgh. That is to say, I speak as one who seeks to understand, through scholarly intersections of philosophy and religious belief, what these issues are and how they affect the tenor and course of our society.
	Yet even there immediately one courts the risk of controversy. It was David Hume, who suffered in his own life the offences of religious discrimination and hatred—indeed, denied, as he was, a professorship of philosophy because of his alleged atheism and actual scepticism—who reminded philosophers of the change of terrain when one moves from philosophy to religion. He wrote:
	"Whereas the mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous".
	So, too, one might add, are any potential mistakes in legislation about religion.
	However, a background in the philosophy of religion, as well as an early but growing respect for the conventions of this House, reassure me that there are merits in speaking on this topic not just as a Cross-Bencher defined in party political terms but as a Cross-Bencher in fact in matters of religious belief and practice.
	I restrict myself to two specific points. In the first place, I welcome particularly Clause 1. Subsections (1)(a), (2)(a) and (2)(b) of the Bill are particularly welcome. The classification of blasphemy as a crime belonged to another age.
	In the second, and final, place, I further ask your Lordships to reflect a little more widely upon the context from which Clause 2 of the Bill comes before us. The context is one of ignorance that promotes fear and suspicion of the religious beliefs and practices of others. I am not wholly persuaded of the truth of the adage that:
	"To understand all is to forgive all",
	but I have no doubt that in matters of religious belief and religious sensitivities, knowledge and understanding are a precondition of tolerance and toleration.
	The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, stressed the appalling level of religious discrimination and harassment in our society. This is clearly a matter that requires serious attention. I suggest that one way in which to give it serious attention is to consider what I believe is an obvious point: the question of what means we provide for our people to understand these issues. What is the pattern and form of religious education which we operate in our schools and more widely in our society?
	My suggestion is that we do not yet have an adequate form of religious education—adequate, that is, for the character of the diversity of the society in which we live. If that is the case, surely one way in which to tackle such appalling discrimination—it is there; I have no doubt about that—is to think once more about the groundwork and fundamental principles of the kind of education which we provide in our schools.
	Therefore, if, in fact, we proceed further with the discussion of these matters—I hope that we do—I hope that in due course that will include the opportunity here and elsewhere for a reassessment of the place and nature of religious education both generally in our society and specifically in our schools. If one considers that such a reassessment might be too controversial, and if one considers that such a search for knowledge and understanding might be too difficult or even too expensive, then the only alternative, as one of my fellow vice-chancellors from the USA once put it, is to "try ignorance". Surely not. It is undoubtedly the presence of that very ignorance which has led to the need properly to debate such a Bill this evening.

Lord Desai: My Lords, it is genuinely a great pleasure and a privilege for me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, on his maiden speech. He could have chosen any of a variety of topics on which to speak. He could have chosen education, care for the elderly, on which he wrote a masterly report, philosophy or religion. I am glad to say that he chose this Bill and managed to make a very balanced and non-controversial speech on the subject.
	The noble Lord brings to us great distinction as an educationist, philosopher and social thinker. Indeed, he has the incredible distinction of having once been my boss—it is not given to many people to be that—since when he has fallen on hard times. But I welcome him here on behalf of us all and I hope that we shall hear much more of him in the years to come.
	It will come as no surprise that I do not like the Bill. There is a famous story of a couple who went to see the film "Ben-Hur". One asked, "What did you think of it?", to which the other replied, "I liked Ben; I hated Hur". I like Clause 1 but hate Clause 2. That is my summary judgment of the Bill.
	However, seriously speaking, I believe that there are a number of problems with the Bill. I have a deep and abiding respect for the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who introduced it. He has made an unmatched contribution in defence of human rights, and I entirely understand why he is doing what he is doing. But I shall, to the last breath in my body, oppose any legislation of this kind because I believe that it is misconceived and, if passed, will do untold harm to the people whom it seeks to protect.
	I start by arguing my case. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham made my case for me. He said, and I agree, that when the British National Party writes its pamphlets against Muslims, that has nothing to do with religion. It is not indulging in some obscure theological debate about the Koran, the prophet or the Sharia. It is a racist attack on Pakistani, Bangladeshi or Indian Muslims. It has not attacked black Muslims, although it could have done. It has not attacked white Muslims. It is attacking south-Asian Muslims because they are south Asians. If the BNP saw a south Asian walking along the streets of Bradford, Burnley, or wherever, it may not even care that he is not a Muslim but a Hindu. The issue is not one of religion, but religion has been raised because of all the Islamophobia taking place.
	I am an atheist, but I was born a Hindu, so I have to ply my goods. I believe that in the debates on religion there is too narrow an emphasis on the three monotheistic religions. We need to be careful or we shall upset a lot of people in the world—one billion at least—who are not children of Abraham. As I have said before, the three great monotheistic religions of the Middle East have a history of almost 2,000 years of hating each other. That is what neighbours do; they hate each other. I would even say that religious hatred has been preached inside churches, temples and mosques. In the past 2,000 years religious hatred has been preached inside religious temples. That happens today in India among Hindus. Hatred of Muslims is being preached in Hindu temples. It is an absolute recipe for religious hatred to belong to another religion.
	I do not take seriously the professions of religion that they all preach tolerance and believe in peace. I shall not go down that road, or I shall never stop. The problem is not one of religious hatred. Both the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the right reverend Prelate gave the example of Northern Ireland. How very nice. When I see children being spat upon as they go to primary school and being fire-bombed, do I say, "That cannot possibly happen in Northern Ireland because it has legislation against religious hatred"? What do we think is going on there? It has nothing to do with religion.
	People identify certain groups by religion, but there is communal hatred. In India and Pakistan there used to be what was called "communalism". This is communalism; that is, hating communities. People are labelled by religion. Even though they look exactly like you, behave like you, eat like you and drink like you, you hate them because you label them as belonging to another community.
	I have said before that if we were really serious about this question, we should re-examine the racial hatred legislation and see whether we cannot extend the definition of race to cover these kinds of acts. There is a question of religious discrimination with which we should deal, but that is not an issue in this legislation. Therefore, I shall not deal with it tonight. I shall make one comment, which I have made before. My race is not my choice; my religion is my choice. Therefore, one cannot draw a parallel between race and religion.
	People say that Jews and Sikhs have an identity between race and religion. I do not believe that that is entirely true. Carl Marx's father converted to Christianity. However, everyone still denounced Marx as a Jew. If one wants to hate the Jews, one does not care what religion they are; one still hates them.
	Some prominent Christians become Jews when they marry. For example, Miss Taylor became a Jew when she married her second husband, Mike Todd. She has never been hated as a Jew. Why? There is a real distinction here. If I was a Sikh and I shaved off my beard and cut my hair no one would know what religion I was. So there are funny things going on here. I think that people hate Jews because they hate Jews as a race. Theological issues which used to be part of Christians hatred of Jews are now, thank heaven, almost gone.
	We are dealing here with communal or racial hatred. It is hatred of—let us call them—national groups which live in certain areas. We are making a great mistake for entirely honourable reasons by putting a religious tag on this issue. Religion has caused enough trouble for the last 2000 years; let it not cause any more.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I share a great deal of sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, has just said although I suspect that my logic would lead me back to the Bill in order to tackle the problems with which he sought to deal. I cannot, in the limited time that I have spent looking at the matter, see any other practical way of tackling the kind of problems that we all agree exist. Although I entirely agree with the noble Lord that these are not problems that, by and large, at the moment spring from religion in this country, they are expressed in that way. Perhaps tackling the expression is the practical and sensible way forward.
	I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has brought the Bill back to us. Like my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, I am pleased to be tackling this matter again. I was delighted that we did not have to tackle it in the rush to pass the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill because a great deal of care and thought is needed to get the provision right. There are activities which should be caught under this Bill, and there are activities that it might threaten to catch which should definitely not be caught.
	It is difficult to define a religion. We do not have any definition of religion in this Bill or, so far as I am aware, in our law. Once one starts with the great religions, certainly with Christianity and Islam, one is not dealing with a community but with a whole scatter of communities which have spent some parts of their history burning each other (and doubtless doing other dreadful things to each other) because of minor differences in their interpretation of the same gospels. One is not dealing with one friendly community, but with a whole collection of little communities; one of which is a community that we have just been to war with—the Taliban. It seems to me that one can reasonably get to the point of hating the Taliban—and it is a group which would define itself in relation to religion. Therefore, if it was a circumstance that was happening within this country one could find oneself, without a great deal of care, caught by legislation such as this.
	We could also find mothers being caught under the provisions whose children had been kidnapped by quasi-Christian sects. That happens in this country and it causes a great deal of pain. There are a number of what one might call quasi-religions which are extremely rich and which are fierce in prosecuting their enemies. One must be careful not to hand a loaded weapon to them.
	We must also be careful about the extension of the concept of religion to other things. There is much more observance of fox hunting and keen enjoyment of it and participation in it among those who go in for it than there is of Christianity among many people who would call themselves Christian. Communism might qualify as a religion, if it did not deny the fact so earnestly. It is difficult to know where the boundaries of religion will be drawn.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, religion and race are different. Religion is not always a choice; one is born into a community, as well as a race, and religion can be part of that. I was born a Christian, although I am no longer a Christian. Christianity has doubtless made its mark on me, and I identify with much of the belief system with which I grew up. I would be identified as a Christian by someone who wanted to put me into a religious slot.
	It is reasonable, in some circumstances, to hate things religious, although I cannot think of a circumstance in which it would be reasonable to hate someone because of their race. If Catholics were still burning us, and we were still burning Catholics, it would be quite reasonable for us to hate the other side. It does not strike me that, under those circumstances, we should seek to stop someone hating someone who is doing something hateful. Religion, sadly, often results in people—or groups within a religion—doing hateful things.
	I should like to see the Bill go into Committee. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that that would be a bad way of dealing with it. I do not want to see a stitch-up between the major religions, with them deciding what the law should be and presenting us with a fait accompli. I want us, the non-religious, who are equally concerned about the effect of religion on our society, to participate.
	Referring the Bill to a Committee of the House would mean that it would run into the sands, because it would not get time to pass by the end of the Session. However, the Bill would be thoroughly debated. It would probably come back to the House for a Report stage and then die. That would mean that it was open to the community at large to decide whether we could bring back an amended Bill and run it through its proper course in the new Session. That would be a sensible way of doing things and could be a constructive way of raising the issues in a calm, collected and open atmosphere and of having them properly debated by all sides without the debate being captured by any particular section of society.
	In changing the Bill, we must go for common sense in constructing the defences that would be available to a citizen. We must rely on the common sense of judges and produce something that is reasonably flexible. I should like to see a defence against the charge of religious hatred on the grounds that the action taken by the accused was reasonable in all the circumstances. That might be worth considering. We might have to define the breadth of that, to make it clear that free speech was defended and that someone would be able to challenge the tenets or practice of a religion as long as that is what they were doing and what they had intended to do.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out that criticism of a religion can tend to stir up hatred. That is what animal rights activists do. They stir up hatred against Islam and Judaism by pointing to the method that they use for killing animals. I should not wish to see such people—much though I disagree with them—prevented from making that criticism. They are not doing it to stir up hatred against individuals in that group; they are trying to deal with a particular religious practice that they find extremely difficult because of their views about how we should treat animals. I do not want that to be caught by the Bill.
	I want there to be time for the Bill to be tested against all the potential things that ought to be able to be done, to make sure that it does not catch them. I want to make sure that the evils that we are trying to catch really would be caught by the Bill and, in particular—to cover the points made by my noble friend—would not already be better caught by something else. We should focus this Bill on things which need to be caught and we should catch them in the right way.
	I wish the Bill good fortune, as long as—and I do mean "as long as"—it does not become law during this Session, but we have a great deal of time in which to debate it.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I shall be very brief. We are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for sticking to his purpose with this the second of his Bills on the subject. I echo his tribute to the excellent Library note.
	In warmly supporting the Bill, I shall not propound the arguments I have prepared because most of them have been made already with great eloquence, and it is rather late for the others. They have been made eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, my noble friend Lord Ahmed and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham. But, following the subtle and erudite maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, I shall add two authorities for my opinion.
	One is the third century Indian king, Ashoka, who said that the beliefs of other people all deserve reverence; and the other is John Stuart Mill, who included within religious freedom the tolerance of scepticism and atheism, as does the European Convention on Human Rights.
	As for blasphemy, I read last week in the History of Blasphemy just published, by Alain Cabantous, that the Talmud was publicly burned as blasphemous and that the publisher of Tom Paine's The Age of Reason was punished as a blasphemer. That is not an edifying history, and one better curtailed.
	Finally, I strongly endorse the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for the reasons he gave and because of the various concerns expressed by noble Lords, and because of the innovatory nature of Clause 2, with its implied acknowledgement of a post-secular age, which those of us who care for the enlightenment may regret, but I think that that is the case.
	Not least, a Select Committee could reflect on the opinion of the United Nations Human Rights Committee that,
	"the UK should extend its own criminal legislation to cover offences motivated by religious hatred".
	The UK is a signatory to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights and has bound itself to uphold both the convention's freedoms and its protections. But we need now to pay more detailed attention to the implementation of our international obligations in respect of hatred on the grounds of religion or belief. On that basis, I warmly commend the Bill.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I should like to say how much I enjoyed the contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham. The right reverend Prelate was a long-standing member of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, NACRO, and has a record on equality and human rights second to none. That was clearly demonstrated in his speech tonight. I thank him for that.
	May I also say how delighted I was to listen to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood. His speech was a matter of considerable substance because I believe that he has highlighted education as one of the elements that we need to consider as a part of this equation.
	I support the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Avebury because its purpose is clear. It seeks to abolish the common law offence of blasphemy and certain other offences, and to create an offence of religious hatred. I have a great deal of sympathy with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, but this is not a recent phenomenon. When I came to this country in 1956 and settled in Brighton, the local National Front and British National Party formed the Sussex Racial Preservation Society in case I contaminated the local culture.
	The recent trend of the National Front and British National Party is not to behave on the basis of racial element but to exploit Hindus and Sikhs against Muslims. I worked for the Commission for Racial Equality for more than 28 years. Whenever racial discrimination or religious hatred against Muslims came before the CRE, it was powerless to do anything.
	If the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and I were to walk down the street together, I do not believe that any National Front member would be able to distinguish which one of us was a Hindu or a Muslim. Both of us would be one to him. To that extent, the racial argument is valid but it goes beyond that—and it is time that we were a step ahead.
	The record in respect of incitement to racial hatred has been poor. The situation in relation to religious hatred is even worse—as I found during my work at the CRE. One must feel concern about the security of all communities in Britain. The Minister might be tempted to ask why we did not support a similar measure during the passage of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. That measure was not the right place for such a provision. The events of 11th September were not relevant. A distinction had to be made between anti-terrorism measures that could be justified as necessary in an emergency situation and those that have wider implications and should be given greater consideration by Parliament.
	Unlike the measures that the Government had in mind, my noble friend Lord Avebury goes one step further. The Bill is designed to abolish the common law offence of blasphemy that was not covered by the anti-terrorism legislation. The view is widely held that the current law is unfair and protects only members of the Christian faith. The Government certainly face a dilemma. There are people who believe that the common law offence of blasphemy should be abolished. Equally, there are people who advocate a more stringent approach. It does not matter which view one supports. It is clear that the offence as it stands gives better support to one religion while others are left to fend for themselves. Any law that discriminates in its application is a bad law and goes against the Government's stance on equality legislation.
	My noble friend's solution is worthy of consideration. The Bill will amend Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 to include racial or religious hatred. In addition, it will introduce a common, universal definition that treats all religions equally. Section 17 will be amended so that religious hatred means
	"hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief".
	Thus it will be possible to tackle incitement resulting from words or behaviour; the display, publishing or distribution of written material; public performances or plays; distributing, showing or playing a recording; broadcasting or the possession of racially inflammatory material.
	I note the concern expressed by the Bishop of London's working group on offences against religion and public worship as early as 1987. At that time, the right reverend Prelate said:
	"It is our strong opinion that to withdraw the protection of the law altogether from grossly abusive attacks, made with the purpose of outraging religious feelings, would be widely taken to express the view that religious belief was no longer a matter deserving the protection of the law".
	Section 17A of the Public Order Act 1986 as proposed by my noble friend is clearly designed to ensure that all religious beliefs are adequately protected. I trust that the Bishops' Bench will welcome this provision.
	The working party of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London expressed a clear view about other religions. It stated:
	"We feel that the requirements of natural justice entail that this protection should not be limited to Christians. Other members of the British Society who sincerely hold religious beliefs are members of the same society as Christians and so should enjoy similar protection under the state law. A new offence which seeks to protect adherents of all religions, would be a cohesive and supportive element in the plural society of the country today".
	That is the sentiment described by the right reverend Prelate. It is right, therefore, that we should ensure that there is a process of equality in such legislation.
	The creation of an offence of religious hatred is very important. There have been a number of research reports—identified by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed—published by the Home Office, which have examined religious discrimination. Much emphasis has been placed on this issue because "racially aggravated" offences are defined by race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins. The definition does not include religious groups, although some religious groups may be covered by analogy with court decisions made under the Race Relations Act 1976.
	The House of Lords held that Sikhs constitute an ethnic group, whereas Muslims do not. I do not think that this is the place to rehearse the arguments about ethnicity, but suffice to say that racial hatred can be dealt with under the present race relations legislation on incitement to racial hatred, but there is no equivalent protection afforded to matters of religious hatred.
	Even in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 there is an ambiguity about this matter. There may be an offence which may appear to be motivated by religious hostility but which may also contain a racist element. The test of what amounts to "racially aggravated" requires that the racial hostility is "wholly or partly" a motivating factor. Even if there is a religious hostility, provided that part of the hostility is racist and provided that part of the motivation was based on racial motivation or hostility, then, and only then, is the offence covered under the Act. In other words, if a racial element cannot be established, the case for religious hostility fails.
	What is now required is a detailed consideration about the appropriateness of an offence of religious hatred.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. With respect, I do not think the noble Lord is quite right. Under Sections 39 and 40, the religious motivation alone would carry. Therefore there is in existence, under existing law, thanks to the anti-terrorism Act, a mechanism to protect what he wishes to protect.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, my understanding of what is provided for is that if there is an element of religious hostility in matters of racial hostility, that can be taken by the courts to be an aggravating factor in determining sentence. That is what I understand.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is either racial or religious. Therefore one or the other will serve to protect.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, at this late hour I do not wish to argue about the legal knowledge of the noble Lord. Certainly, if I am wrong, I shall correct my record in Hansard at the earliest opportunity.
	There is a need for independent evidence to be collected. There is a further need to examine appropriate legal remedies in matters of religious discrimination. We need to allay the fears of those who are concerned about freedom of speech. Will the Minister consider asking the Select Committee to consider these issues—a suggestion was made by the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Ahmed, and a number of other speakers—so that, in due course, we can prepare a framework of legislation which may go a long way towards establishing equality and removing the sense of insecurity that is prevalent among many minorities in this country. That is the right way ahead. I hope that the Minister will give due consideration to this request.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the House will undoubtedly be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for introducing the Bill. I am bound to say that I believe he is being a trifle hasty and opportunistic in doing so. However, that is consistent with the noble Lord's record in this field and we should not be surprised. I could have wished for a longer interval between the passing of the anti-terrorism Bill at the end of November last year and any reconsideration of this matter. I believe that considerable thought is necessary before we make progress.
	It is a particular pleasure to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood. I have never met a professor of religious philosophy before, but I cannot think of a more appropriate occasion for someone who includes that in his curriculum vitae to make his mark in a maiden speech. I look forward to hearing many more contributions from the noble Lord.
	We need to be clear about one point arising out of remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. The Bill does not make religious hatred an offence. If the Bill progresses, it will deal with various matters which might create, cause or incite religious hatred. Religious hatred itself is not an offence.
	My second point is possibly a more difficult one. I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and for the work that he does for and on behalf of his community. I have every sympathy in respect of the problems created for the people in that community by the present national and international situation. Equally, I respect the responsible approach of all moderate people within the Muslim community in this country. However, we must consider this matter from a wider perspective than the problems currently faced by one single community. I hope that the noble Lord will not mind my introducing that slightly wider perspective.
	This is not a straightforward issue. My noble friend Lord Lucas raised the question of what is a religion, or indeed a religious community. I begin by dissecting Christianity. There is an obvious division into Catholics and Anglicans. Perhaps the right reverend Prelate will forgive me for making a distinction between Anglicans and the Church of England. Those in north America would not consider themselves as having anything to do with the Church of England, although they are of the same Church in many ways.
	We have the Reform Church, Baptists, the Congregational Church, and there are sects. In my part of the world there is a group called The Peculiar People, who are very strange indeed. They can cause quite a lot of friction in the community. It becomes quite difficult when we come to Mormons and even more difficult when we talk about the Church of Scientology, which may or may not be a church or religion at all. These matters are important because definitions can be used in other contexts or subventions from government. We need to be extremely careful. All these matters can cause difficulty.
	It is interesting to note that there were discussions between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved power in Scotland prior to the passage of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act. That Act was clearly intended to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. The only reservation that the Scots had about the Bill was that on no account should the religious clauses apply in Scotland. It has a well-known reputation for holding strong and divisive religious views. The Scots clearly thought that the matter was far too contentious for we Sassenachs to be allowed to pass an opinion. I issue another note of caution.
	I have reached the conclusion that the Bill, although well-intentioned, is premature. I should prefer that it were not here now, but that is not because I am opposed to the principle. It may be that the Bill in the wisdom of the House will be sent to a Select Committee and, if it finally comes back to us, that may be an appropriate way forward. My view is that progress of this Bill in this form at this time would not be wise. With the greatest deference to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, whom I greatly respect, I do not think that the matter has had sufficient thought. I am not certain that we have yet arrived at a sufficient degree of agreement for us to be confident that the Bill will succeed in the purpose for which it is intended.
	The issues are wider than the simple and straightforward one that has been caused by the current national and international situation vis-à-vis aspects of the Muslim community. The situation is tragic but we must be extremely careful about what we do because of the wider implications and the possibility of the measure having an adverse affect on other aspects of life.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, rarely can there have been such a fascinating debate on a Bill, brought forward in this way by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. From the Government's perspective, it is worth echoing our gratitude and thanks to the noble Lord for bringing forward the Bill as quickly as he has in the time since we discussed the anti-terrorism legislation before Christmas. I do not share the view expounded by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that this is opportunistic, except to say that it is opportune. It is right for us to continue to have such important debates. It would be fair to reflect that this is one of the issues left over from the early debates on anti-terrorism to which we are right to return at this stage.
	Before I turn to the content of what was both an interesting and fascinating debate, I should like to record my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, on his contribution to our debate this evening. I guess that only a professor of religious philosophy, or of the philosophy of religion, could declare himself a "religious Cross-Bencher". That is a fine expression, if I may say so. In his short and sweet contribution, the noble Lord was right to remind us that it is easy to make mistakes in legislation, and that we should perhaps seek to reflect more widely on the debate when moving forward and trying to consider such issues. I say that in the full knowledge that it is not too long ago that we sought to put these very clauses into an important piece of legislation.
	The issue that the noble Lord touched upon with great perception was that relating to religious education in our schools. I am now fast approaching my mid-point in the century of life and think back to the time when I attended school and was taught religious instruction. I can now reflect that it is not that way any more; indeed, great progress has been made. My two children are now at secondary school. What I appreciate most when I view their homework is the fact that Mr Hickman, their teacher in these matters, provides contexts and presents them with a rational way of looking at the world's religions. That is the way to tackle the very core of the problem, which is, essentially, ignorance. We need to foster and further understanding of these matters. However, at the same time, I argue that we also need to counter discrimination, bias, hatred and incitement to hatred, and best consider how we can do so.
	My response in general to the Bill will be brief. I suppose I should pray for forgiveness in that respect. However, my response will be brief because, as noble Lords know, my noble friend Lord Rooker and my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General spent some time not so long ago facing opposition from all sides of the House on a clause in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill—a clause that now appears word for word in Clause 2 of the Bill before us.
	Your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to rehearse those arguments at this late hour. In any event, I am not sure that I could surpass the comprehensive and compelling explanation that my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General gave on both 10th and 13th December last on the effect of the clause and the operation of the existing law on the incitement of racial hatred.
	Despite the fact that the incitement to religious hatred clause was dropped from the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, we should not forget that that legislation importantly amended Part III of the Public Order Act in that it expanded racial hatred to groups outside Great Britain, and also increased the maximum penalty for the offence of inciting racial hatred from two to seven years' imprisonment.
	I should point out that the Government remain convinced that those who deliberately seek to incite hatred against religious groups, to stir up hatred, and to set community against community, should commit a criminal offence. We remain convinced that the law should not create anomalies where some religious groups are protected because they fall under the courts' interpretation of racial groups, while others are not so protected. That point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and other speakers during the course of this evening's debate.
	We remain convinced that an offence of incitement to religious hatred would not be abused, that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that freedom of speech is not unduly restricted and that criticism, debate or even jokes would not be outlawed or suppressed. That was our view in December and, your Lordships will not be surprised to learn, it is still our view.
	On reflection, it was not clear exactly why your Lordships' House resisted the clause in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. Was it simply, as some suggested, because the clause was inappropriate for that Bill? Was it because the clause was technically flawed or was it because it was opposed in principle? The Hansard reports of our debates show a mish-mash of reasons, rationale and opposition. Perhaps this Bill will clarify where the House now stands. I certainly welcome the real debate that has been advanced this evening on the merits of the clause.
	We put the incitement offence into the anti-terrorism Bill because we recognised the weakness in law that could be exploited during tension that arose as a direct result of the events of 11th September. We did not support the amendment tabled to that Bill by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker—which was identical to the provision in this Bill—to repeal the offence of blasphemy because we did not think that the repeal of blasphemy was an issue that had arisen as a direct result of the events of 11th September.
	In December we had the rather odd scenario of some noble Lords opposite opposing the incitement clause because it was inappropriate for the anti-terrorism Bill but urging the Government in the same Bill to repeal blasphemy. That was a rich irony.
	We have made it clear that we believed that it would be appropriate to have a constructive debate on the issue. That debate began with the anti-terrorism Bill and with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary's expression of his personal belief that the law on blasphemy should be repealed. I want it recorded that we very much welcome the opportunity that this Bill provides to continue that debate and we strongly welcome the suggestion that a Select Committee would be ideally placed to look at the issues in a considered and responsible way. I am happy to acknowledge that that view has been widely reflected in your Lordships' House this evening.
	My noble friend Lord Rooker made it clear on 13th December—and he made no bones about it—that the Government have a full legislative timetable for this Session. We are committed to the proposals outlined in the Queen's Speech and we are not prepared to sacrifice that timetable. However, the Government will not be the opposition to this Bill and we shall watch its progress with interest.
	One or two other matters were raised during the debate that perhaps need to be cleared up. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General would issue guidance for the Bill. My noble and learned friend offered to issue guidance on how he would approach the exercise of his powers to consent to prosecutions if the Bill were to pass into law. If it would be useful, I am sure that my noble and learned friend would reconsider that position in issuing guidance, a draft of which he produced to aid your Lordships during the passage of the anti-terrorism Bill.
	It is right to put on record our agreement with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham that there is a great need to look at the law relating to offences in churchyards. We accept that that is important. That is why we support the examination of the legislation in general terms by a Select Committee. That will undoubtedly be one of the issues that the Select Committee will want to turn its attention to.
	I should like to correct one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. He is wrong to say that religiously aggravated offences were not amended earlier. I think that it is right to say that they were amended by the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and that racially or religiously aggravated offences are now covered. It is an important point to remember.
	I am heartened by the general support in your Lordships' House for the Bill's provisions. I am also heartened by what I sense are messages of support from all quarters within your Lordships' House for referring the matter to a Select Committee. Clearly that would be right. It would provide for mature reflection all the issues that have been very valuably raised both in this debate and in our debates in December. All your Lordships—from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, to the noble Lord, Lord Desai—seem to agree at least on that point. Perhaps I should end my remarks there.
	I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on introducing the Bill. Perhaps I should also commiserate with him given the amount of grief that it has caused others in the past. We certainly wish him well. Although the Bill has familiar clauses, he will undoubtedly discover that there is some equally familiar opposition to them.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he accept that, when I was dealing with the matter relating to the religious hatred provision, I was talking about the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and not the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001? He also mentioned the timetable. Does he think that progress will be made on the legislation in this Session?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I would not want to pre-empt discussions through the usual channels on how the Select Committee might proceed. The noble Lord could perhaps discuss that issue with the noble Lord, Lord Roper—who is next to him on the Bench and could raise it with his colleagues. It is an important matter and requires some urgent thought; we thought that back in December and it continues to be our view. However, as many of your Lordships have said, it requires careful consideration. Of course I accept the noble Lord's explanation on the crime and disorder legislation.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I shall not trespass on the patience of the House by reviewing the whole of this debate, in which so many distinguished noble Lords have spoken. The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, was not the least of the speeches. It was something of a triumph to manage to be non-controversial on such a controversial subject. I think that his scholarly, wise and straightforward speech does not put him in the category of religious spin doctor—which was a nice coinage that we may be able to use on some future occasion.
	I am most grateful to the Minister for his remarks on the Government's support, and particularly for his endorsement of the proposal that the Bill should be committed to a Select Committee. Several noble Lords on all sides of the House have supported that proposal. Even those who did not like the Bill's content said that there should be much further discussion of this issue. In particular, although the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is not against the Bill's principle, he thinks that the proposals are far-reaching and demand great examination in case there are unanticipated side effects. As I understand it, the Select Committee would be the vehicle for doing just that.
	In reply to the question asked by my noble friend, Lord Dholakia, on timing, I understand—and hope that I am at liberty to say this—that the Liaison Committee meets at the end of February. If it sees that your Lordships sense that the matter should be referred to a Select Committee, it will consider whether the means are available to set up a committee. As I understand it, two committees are reaching the end of their deliberations. There would therefore be a strong possibility that such a Select Committee could begin its work after Easter and report back to your Lordships before the end of this Session.
	So that takes care of the anxieties that some noble Lords expressed that they did not wish the Bill to be passed into law in this Session. It would have no possibility of doing that, but it would perhaps form the basis of a much more carefully thought out Bill which would be brought back to your Lordships during the Session following this one.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

House adjourned at ten minutes before eleven o'clock.